Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Environmentally destructive Cambridge Pol is Attorney to North Point Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cambridge City Councilor on Monteiro, Healy

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

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

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

Elizabeth Anne Kanze just posted a link on facebook to the Davis comments in the August 31 2011 candidate forum with the comment, ”Henrietta Davis on Retaliation Lawsuit : money more important.” The link is:

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

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

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

The letter from the former head of the Cambridge Women’s Commission, Nancy Ryan, may be read at: In addition to the Chronicle publication, she distributed these comments widely apparently as part of an email mailing. I received a copy of the email mail on a listserve.

Davis’ supposed response may be read at:


The key opinion of the Trial Judge may be read at:

The Appeals Court panel’s comments may be read at:

Saturday, November 26, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The destruction occurred and continues.

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

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

Note the total absence of anything in that part of the BU Bridge rotary which is visible. Nothing is there because what should have been put there was used to destroy part of the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

Straight ahead, where the cars are pointing, is the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge / the BU Bridge rotary. At the bottom of the picture, barely visible, is another roadway. It is the off ramp from Memorial Drive to the BU Bridge / the BU Bridge rotary.

Beyond the traffic cones is an area which used to connect to the BU Bridge. That area is now part of the construction zone for work on the near side of the BU Bridge. Straight ahead and to the right is the BU Bridge.

The very large concrete and green structure straight ahead is Boston University’s School of Law, located on the south, opposite, side of the BU Bridge.

Immediately below BU Law and straight ahead in the picture but below the street level and not visible is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

This photo is taken from the BU Bridge. You are looking primarily at the biggest tree in the Destroyed Nesting Area, plus some Whites and some Canadas.

This area was heavily vegetated until the vegetation was destroyed by the DCR / its representatives. The failure of the vegetation to grow back indicates poisoning.

The items in the foreground are in the destroyed part of the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Again taken from the BU Bridge. To the right is the eastern side of the BU Bridge. The vast emptiness used to be natural habitat. As you can see, at the time of this photograph, it was simply empty.

Straight ahead is the core part of the Boston University campus, west of the School of Law. Below of it can be seen a sliver of the Charles River. Below that is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The white area between that and the BU Bridge is the snow and ice covered Charles River. The trees are at the edge of the Destroyed Nesting Area. The line is the end of the BU Bridge construction destruction.

The structure to the left of the line are structures blocking access to the unused wasteland.

This photo is of the area beyond the artificially created wasteland next to the BU Bridge. The structure at the top is a bridge support in the middle of the Charles River.

The Charles River White Geese are enjoying a small part of the river which is not frozen.

Minimally changed land abutting the river is at the bottom of the photo.

The geese are excellently adapted for this environment. They have lived free here for 30 years. They have goose down jackets. Their biggest problem is that the DCR and Cambridge are deliberately starving them.

This photo is taken of the view in the opposite direction from the prior photo, with the camera moving north.

The totally unnecessary destruction is straight ahead. Immediately above it is the hillside which is the northern extremity of the Destroyed Nesting Area. Above that is the on ramp to Memorial Drive. Then Memorial Drive. Then a building now owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formerly owned by Polaroid Corporation and before that by Ford Motor Company.

Photo from the top of the staircase illegally constructed as part of an apparently unwritten (and thus illegal) agreement with the DCR by Boston University at the eastern end of the ramp to Memorial Drive.

This used to be beautiful, and the snow hides the worst of the destruction. Beneath the snow is a very significant part of dirt created by the destruction of ground vegetation by the DCR / its agents. To the right can barely be seen that portion of the construction zone which constituted totally useless destruction.

Straight ahead is the BU Bridge. Above the BU Bridge is a new dormitory complex built on top of what was an historical armory, which a lot of people thought BU should not destroy.

As I recall, the agreement by which BU obtained the armory is another of those strange agreements.

Whites and Canadas under the big tree, Charles and BU Bridge in the background.

Whites admire the water of the Charles River. Canadas feeding below them. Above them are the supports for the Grand Junction bridge. Taken from the eastern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area between the big tree and the water, another area formerly heavily vegetated, vegetation destroyed.

The Whites enjoy the Charles and some free water. Taken below the wasteland that was needed for access to the BU Bridge but which still has not been returned to nature. Artificial wall blocking off wasteland can be seen to the right.

A further distance shot of the previous. The plastic wall is seen again with apparently stronger support above.

View from close to the previous location looking up at the empty no longer needed access area at the BU Bridge.

Additional view of the previous, camera moving slightly to the east, nothing there. The Ford / Polaroid / MIT building is above and to the right.

This used to be a heavily vegetated woods.

It is the hillside below the Grand Junction, taken from below the large tree.

Visible are Charles River White Geese and Canadas.

Photo from the illegally constructed staircase. The never sensible construction area is to the right. The artificially created dirt is straight ahead. There is some view, under the snow, of the little bit of ground vegetation which has not been destroyed. At the top is the Charles, the BU Bridge and those dormitories which used to be a historical armory and which have the strange history.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Cambridge City Solicitor to Retire - Over Monteiro?

1. General.
2. Two Alternative Interpretations.
3. Monteiro.
A. General.
B. Malpractice against the trial attorney?
C. Finding that the City Solicitor was responsible for the debacle?

1. General.

In a letter being presented to the Cambridge City Council by the Cambridge City Manager this evening (November 21, 2011), the Cambridge City Manager informs the City Council of the intention of the City Solicitor to retire on January 20, 2012. The letter may be read at:

2. Two Alternative Interpretations.

It is impossible to react to this notice through anything other than through informed speculation. Therefore, let us be clear that I know nothing directly behind the circumstances of the City Solicitor’s retirement.

There are two reasonable and readily thinkable reactions to this news.

One very likely reason for this action is that the Cambridge City Solicitor thinks it is time for him to retire.

One alternate reason is the case of Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

3. Monteiro.

A. General.

Malvina Monteiro was recently paid $8.3 million by Cambridge as the result of decisions of superior court judge and jury and a panel of the Appeals Court.

Findings were strongly against the Cambridge City Manager in a case where judge, jury and appeals court found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded about $1.1 million in real damages and a strikingly large $3.5 million in penal damages. The trial judge, in her key opinion, reviewed the award and went into great detail concerning the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager. She found his actions “reprehensible.” The appeals court reacted to the city’s appeal with disgust. Its reviewing panel refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion in comments which cited “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The key opinion of the trial judge quoted the City Manager as saying he was fully aware of the pendency of the civil rights case during his actions against Monteiro and that he carefully operated in communication with council.

The judge interpreted this comment as communicating deliberate action by the Cambridge City Manager.

B. Malpractice against the trial attorney?

There have been various speculations by Cambridge Pol types of the possibility of a malpractice suit against the attorney representing the city in the case.

My reaction is that these contentions amount to yet another change of subject by the Cambridge Pols. The decision says that the Cambridge City Manager has committed “outrageous” and “reprehensible” malfeasance in office.

The Cambridge City Council has not even heard a motion to fire the Cambridge City Manager. A majority of five of the nine incumbents (one not reelected) committed themselves to rehiring the Cambridge City Manager during the recent election.

Exactly zero City Councilors presently on the council or newly elected have publicly supported firing the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro.

It is always impossible to fully evaluate comments made by Cambridge Pols on major issues. A long time ago, I stopped trying to determine intent, but rather evaluate their comments by impact. The impact of the malpractice idea against the trial attorney, to me, is changing the subject.

First of all, the city manager, according to jury, judge and appeals court, should be fired.

Secondly however, the city council voted to fund the appeals WITHOUT SEEKING INDEPENDENT COUNCIL. This is absolutely outrageous.

With the comments of the judge and jury in the trial, absolute minimum action by the Cambridge City Council would have been to get a second opinion. Failure to get a second opinion communicates, as usual, that the Cambridge City Council did not want to know what it was doing.

The trial attorney can be expected to be biased toward appeal. The trial attorney is trying to achieve his/her agreed upon results as best as he/she can. Failure to check that opinion is very much failure on the part of the Cambridge City Council, not the attorney.

C. Finding that the City Solicitor was responsible for the debacle?

Really, this is the other possibility.

I am raising it. There are a whole bunch of permutations on this part of the analysis.

I really do not want to go there, pretty much for the same reason I find a malpractice action against the trial attorney outrageous.

You are changing the subject.

The City Manager has civilly been found guilty of “outrageous” and “reprehensible” malfeasance in office by jury, judge and appeals court, to wit, destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The games should end.

The City Manager should be fired.


I attended the meeting long enough to see the city council had no comment on the retirement.

Large housing project announced south of Alewife

Cambridge Day is reporting a 429 unit complex announced as “The Residences at Fresh Pond. Their report may be read at:

I attended two Cambridge Conservation Commission discussions on this project.

The construction impacts Belmont perhaps half a mile to the west and Arlington perhaps half a mile to the north plus traffic coming in on Route 2. Route 2 is the northern of the two major east-west superhighways in Massachusetts. The Route 2 super highway ends just north (above) of the area in the Cambridge Day photo, just north of Alewife station.

The Cambridge Day report provides excellent details although its photo does not go far enough south. If the project is in the photo, it is at the very bottom. The photo shows the massive Alewife Red Line station with a portion of the Alewife reservation which is being destroyed by Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Reservations. A whole bunch of lies and a key fake “protective” group are helping that destruction.

The project in question in the Cambridge Day report is south of the railroad tracks / below the railroad tracks in the photo. The massive parking lot directly above the tracks is but a tiny portion of the massive parking area which should be used for flood storage rather than destroying the Alewife reservation and then “discovering” that the destruction will not provide the needed flood storage.

I do not know the exact zoning history of the particular project in the Cambridge Day report. I do know about the very recent upzoning that impacts the area of the project.

The game was “transfer of development rights,” a variation of the beggar your neighbor politics which is one of many dirty tricks normal in Cambridge politics. They have a predictable script. “Beggar your neighbor” is one of the standard tactics in the script.

I lived in Cambridge to the west of the project area for nearly two years, the Cambridge Highlands neighborhood.

Between the north south highway (Alewife Brook Parkway / Route 16) is a low density industrial area. The key lie in the zoning change was that development would be transferred from the area near where I lived to the area near Route 16. The secret behind the lie was that the resulting zoning density near my former home was set at a density which simply and clearly will not be allowed by Cambridge. The zoning density in the “protected area” was way below even the density allowed in my residential neighborhood, after the games / development transfer is played.

Thus massive development is encouraged to go in in that portion of the industrial area in toward Route 16 while the portion toward Cambridge Highlands is “protected.”

When the area next to Route 16 is filled in, the powers that will look at the area which was “protected” in that zoning change with shock. Totally unacceptable to have such small industrial buildings next to their massive new buildings. They will have to correct that.

And they would not get the increase in density of the zoning near Route 16 if they did the upzoning in an honest manner.

So a massive industrial area gets a massive upzoning in two steps. Very similar to the total destruction of the publicly owned and irreplaceable Alewife reservation in two steps with bizarre claims of “protection.”

Yet another lie from the City of Cambridge.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Public meeting scheduled on possibility of Grand Junction Passenger Service

1. Meeting announcement.
2. Reality in Cambridge.

1. Meeting announcement.

The following email was received from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on November 18:


Grand Junction Commuter Rail Feasibility Study -- Public Meeting

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is pleased to announce a community meeting to discuss progress on the Grand Junction Commuter Rail Feasibility Study.

This meeting will be held:
Thursday, December 8, 6:30pm-8:00pm
Kennedy-Longfellow School – Auditorium
158 Spring Street, Cambridge

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss an ongoing study of the potential use of the Grand Junction Railroad for supplemental MBTA Commuter Rail service to Cambridge and North Station. At this meeting, MassDOT staff members will discuss results of a ridership analysis and traffic impact analysis, as well as overall study findings, and next steps. This meeting follows up on a community meeting held last June. For more information on prior meetings, see out study website at:

All are welcome at the meeting, and please feel free to share this notice. For more information, or to request alternative language or other special accommodations, please contact Matthew Ciborowski at, or (617) 973-7180.

Please join us on December 8th!

Matthew Ciborowski | Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
phone 617.973.7180 | email


2. Reality in Cambridge.

The same group which “protected” Alewife is extremely visible in this effort, just different faces.

The Cambridge proposal is highly destructive of the environment on the Charles River and, as usual, destructive to the causes they claim to stand for.

The Pols are fighting for commuter passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad, the track that goes through the edge of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Their proposal would cross at grade a number of very active streets in the eastern part of Cambridge with associated disruption of traffic and environmental pollution from standing, idling cars.

This railroad track has seen perhaps four trips a day in connector service between the railroad yards associated with Boston’s passenger oriented North Station and the freight dominated Beacon Yards.

Harvard University owns Beacon Yards along with the adjacent exit ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Cambridge and the Brighton neighborhood of Boston. Harvard bought Beacon Yards and the Massachusetts Turnpike exit shortly after a state agency demonstrated that it is possible to put an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Cambridge over the rail bridge under the BU Bridge which is part of the Grand Junction Railroad.

The Pols claim that the adding passenger trains would benefit Worcester. The Pols claim to oppose the “existing plans.” They give the impression that their opposition is to passenger service on the Grand Junction. The reality is that there are no “existing plans,” just a study.

Worcester currently has all its passenger service run out of Boston’s South Station. South Station is being expanded to add trackage which would be needed for service to New Bedford and Fall River, plus a lot of extra tracks. Worcester has no need to use the Grand Junction. Studies have shown only a small percentage of Worcester residents would have any benefit from the use of that line.

On the other hand, going inbound on the South Station - Worcester line from the point where traffic would be diverted to the Grand Junction, you come to Yawkey Station.

Cambridge wants an irresponsible subway line which would cross the Charles at a point that requires moving Yawkey Station. The legislature is spending millions upgrading Yawkey Station in place. Yawkey Station in place is an integral part of the responsible subway alternative to Cambridge’s irresponsible subway proposal.

Moving ALL Framingham trains to the Grand Junction would make Yawkey Station useless in the subway plans.

Additionally, passenger service on that line would support the massive development Cambridge is building in that area.

Cambridge claims its plan only would create a few passenger trains on the Grand Junction.

Cambridge also claims it is “only” destroying the core of the Alewife reservation, but that proposal cannot do what it claims to with those stated limits either.

Fake limits are the norm with these people.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Most of Letter Calling out Destructive “Protector” of Alewife Reservation Printed by Cambridge Chronicle

Last Friday, November 11, 2011, I passed on on this blog, at, a letter I sent to the Cambridge Chronicle.

My submittal of this letter was highly unusual and the fact that almost all of it was printed is even more unusual because of very severe procedural oddities. Nevertheless this letter was one of the few which make sense being printed in spite of the oddities.

The biggest environmental problem in or near Cambridge, MA, is a bunch “protective” groups I consider fakes. The “protective” groups, once you scratch the highly polished surface have a very strong tendency to be highly influenced by the Cambridge City Manager / City Council. They commonly have the problem of achievements which are in conflict with their stated goals.

One of the worst of these groups has been running around for 15 years or so claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation but maneuvering people away from the winnable / savable part of the reservation, that owned and controlled by public agencies, with the City of Cambridge smack dab in the middle of the situation.

The Alewife reservation is / was a virgin forest only a few hundred feet west of Alewife Station, the northern terminus of the subway systems Red Line. The leader has been crying for 15 years her love for Alewife. A few weeks ago, in the Chronicle, she praised the destruction of the core Alewife reservation, controlled by Cambridge / the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The destruction planned / accomplished involves clear cutting acres of massive, excellent trees with the associated killing of all animals who do not get out of their way and the gutting of massive numbers of nests.

Two weeks ago, the Chronicle published my letter building on a letter from a number of former members of Cambridge’s Human Rights Commission. They had had the nerve to ask about the Monteiro case to the Cambridge City Manager. This case has resulted in the City of Cambridge paying Ms. Monteiro $8.3 million after orders of the appeals court and superior court. That number includes $1.1 million actual damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

The city solicitor apparently treated the request as a violation of the expectation that all people associated with the City of Cambridge pay obeisance to Team Healy [Cambridge City Manager].

My letter two weeks ago applied the principal expressed by the city solicitor and said that his apparent position goes a long way to explain the very commonly irresponsible behavior of these supposed “protective” groups. Three of the points directly hit the Alewife issue.

Last week, after her earlier letter was printed supporting destruction of the core Alewife reservation, the key woman had an other letter bemoaning lack of interest in protecting that part of the reservation she is not trying to destroy. Her letter followed mine by a week and totally ignored my letter and the points which destroy her argument for destroying the core Alewife reservation.

So I sent a letter, printed at the link, asking why she had not responding to the three points in my letter which destroy her position supporting destruction of the core Alewife reservation. My letter was printed at page 17 of the November 17, 2011 Chronicle. Interestingly, my last sentence did not make it into the Chronicle. That was the sentence quoting her prior letter statement of her support for the destruction, without mentioning yet another letter, for obvious reasons.

The letter and its printing was unusual because it constitutes a direct attack by name on the supposed protector of the Alewife reservation. Perhaps the last sentence was omitted to bring the letter closer to what really is normal procedure. The situation, however, called for my letter to be printed, and, once again, the Cambridge Chronicle printed it.

Thank you to the Cambridge Chronicle.

Cambridge City Council compared to Vick, Paterno

1. General.
2. Michael Vick.
3. Joe Paterno.
4. Summary.

1. General.

The Cambridge pols live in their own world. It is a world strikingly different from the world that their massive organization brags about.

This fake world is achieved by a whole bunch of lovely words on matters which generally are not within their powers or barely within their powers, combined with taking really bad actions as secretly as possible.

The voters got rid of a very bad City Councilor from an environmental point of view. He was quoted as saying in public words very similar to the words the Cambridge pols have quite constantly used about their animal victims. This time, he said those words with regard to the woman whose life the Cambridge City Manager destroyed because she had the nerve to file a civil rights complaint.

To me, it is all one mentality, and to a lot of people it is all one mentality.

People who are heartless animal abusers have a distressing tendency to graduate to human beings and, really, listening to a whole bunch of different types of abusers sounds very much alike.

One thing in common is the demeaning of the victim.

And that was exactly what the soon to be former city councilor did with regard to Malvina Monteiro. He and other members of the city council were questioned on the case and they reportedly responded that [destroying her life] was no big thing.

Responsible outsiders have emphatically shown disgust and contempt for the destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life, and responsible outsiders are routinely shocked by Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s heartless abuse of animals.

The one thing the Cambridge pols have most going for them is their own non stop self lauding based on matters which are at most peripheral to their real responsibilities.

2. Michael Vick.

Vick certainly did some terrible things in his dog fighting outrages. He has gone to jail and he has reformed.

The outrages on the Charles River continue unabated as part of truly bizarre proposals.

The plans to make things worse continue unabated.

The contempt for living beings is being reenforced as part of the animal pogrom going on at Alewife, again as part of a truly bizarre package.

Vick is repentant and smaller scale.

Cambridge and the DCR are making things much, much worse.

It is an insult to Vick to compare him to these people.

3. Joe Paterno.

Joe Paterno is a saint at Penn State because of his very long football success combined with his demands of quality scholarship from his players.

He has been fired because of a continuing series of allegations about sexual abuse of children by an assistant with failure to act by Paterno.

The first and most important thing to say about Paterno is that the alleged culprit is exactly that, alleged, and he denies the behavior.

The Cambridge City Manager continues to say he did nothing wrong with regard to Malvina Monteiro.

The jury, the trial judge and the appeals court very strongly disagree.

The jury calculated $1.1 million actual damages. They awarded an essentially unprecedented $3.5 million in penal damages to communicate their feelings.

The judge agreed with the jury and used the word “reprehensible.”

The appeals court would not dignify the appeal with a formal opinion.

The appeals court, in their informal comments, spoke of “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The response of the Cambridge pols:

Exactly zero Cambridge City Councilors want to fire the Cambridge City Manager for his proven and adjudged destruction of the life of Malvina Montero in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Five Cambridge City Council incumbents, reduced to four with the unelection of one, are committed IN ADVANCE to rehiring the City Manager in the coming contract discussions. Three other incumbents and the newly elected councilor are noncommittal.

Paterno has well earned his very great lauding as part of his football legacy.

Paterno was summarily thrown out of his job for failure to supervise.

4. Summary.

Cambridge, MA, USA, has a really rotten city government.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

A Photo Record, September 2011, Destruction of the Charles River environment by Massachusetts

On September 4, 2011, I took a number of photos on the Charles River.

Not long after that, I posted a portion of those photos showing the excellent grove perhaps a mile to the east of the BU Bridge which Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreations intended to destroy.

This is the balance of the photos.

I want to thank the folks who saved Bert for posting two photos showing the environmental outrage.

This photo is of the eastern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The structure to the left is in that part of the BU Bridge construction zone which simply cannot be justified.

At the top of the picture is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology owned building which formerly was a Ford Plant and, more recently, was part of the Polaroid complex.

Those major trees to the right are excellent but threatened by the multiple projects targeted for the area.

Straight ahead is undestroyed vegetation going up the hill supporting the on ramp to Memorial Drive which is the northern boundary. To the left can be seen additional very healthy ground vegetation which is the very small portion not destroyed by the DCR acting through the Charles River Conservancy and other agent.

The dirt would be just as fruitful if it were not for the destructiveness of the DCR and its agents.

On the left is the BU Bridge, at the top is Memorial Drive.

There are two tiny areas of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse which have not been destroyed by the DCR and its agents.

On the right is the western portion of the small remnant which I showed in the prior picture.

On the left is other area which has not been destroyed. Sticking out of the vegetation are two or three undestroyed trees. I published a photo of this area in the spring, thinking that the state had shown some decency by planting these trees and trees I saw in the other undestroyed area. I was wrong. It was not decency. It just was that, over the years, the DCR and its agents, destroyed, and destroyed and destroyed. The only area they did not destroy was the area they planned to destroy in the BU Bridge project. They missed some.

The trees sticking out of the ground vegetation are the bare trees I showed in my photos in the spring. They are healthy.

The very wide path in the middle goes to the corner entrance illegally created by Boston University for the DCR in 1999. The geese did create a narrow path in this location going up to the ramp to get food under Memorial Drive. The vast majority of this destruction, once again, is DCR and its agents.

This is a more distant view of the first photo.

To the right, under the largest tree in the Destroyed Nesting Area is a number of the Charles River White Geese. They used to be able to rest in natural vegetation, but the sick situation in Cambridge, MA, has destroyed that natural vegetation.

This gathering of part of the gaggle under that excellent tree is photographed from the BU Bridge itself.

Look at all that dirt that used to be healthy vegetation and would continue to be healthy vegetation except for the very sick situation in Cambridge, MA and in the DCR.

At the top of this photo, to the east of the destroyed nesting area, is the Grand Junction Railroad Track. The vegetation which has not been destroyed is so thick that the Grand Junction cannot be seen.

This photo, also from the BU Bridge is of the area shown in the first few photos with that major tree and the partial gaggle also included.

Also from the BU Bridge. This is the portion of the construction zone which was totally unnecessary. The silvery shed is visible in the first few photos.

At the top is MIT’s Ford / Polaroid plant. Below it can be seen the bricked edge of the Memorial Drive overpass.

Immediately below the construction zone is the eastern of the two tiny patches of ground vegetation.

Look at how excellent this stuff is in comparison to the patches of dirt artificially and sickly imposed on the environment and its animals by this horribly irresponsible state agency working in close coordination with the City of Cambridge whose behavior has been called “reprehensible” by a civil rights judge.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Response to a “Protector” of the environment who supports massive environmental destruction

The biggest environmental problem in Cambridge, MA, is all those supposedly protective organizations with connections to the Cambridge City Manager or Cambridge City Councilors which tend to achieve exactly the opposite of their supposed goals.

In my opinion, the most important factor in the imminent / ongoing destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife reservation is such an organization.

Alewife is very close to the Northern terminus of the Red Line subway.

It is essentially a virgin wilderness with massive excellent native trees and all sorts of excellent animals. My biggest problem in trying to defend this area has been a supposedly protective organization which has been telling people to look at everything else.

When push came to shove, after 15 years of pious proclamations of love for Alewife, the leader of the supposed protective organization, Ellen Mass, went public with support for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

In the November 10, 2011, issue of the Cambridge Chronicle and on line, she once again proclaims her love for Alewife in a very long letter.

One big trouble with her latest letter is that she is following my letter in the November 3, 2011, Cambridge Chronicle which is posted at: And she looks like she is responding to it.

I have just offered the following response to her response:


Cambridge Chronicle

I want to thank Ellen Mass for responding to that part of my letter in the November 3, 2011, Cambridge Chronicle which was directed straight at her. The trouble with her very long response is that nowhere in the response do I see any meaningful response to the issues I raised.

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


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

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

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


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

Could Ms. Mass, with her 15 years of supposed defense of Alewife, please explain these blind spots? She very clearly supports destruction of the core Alewife Reservation.

Thank you.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Photo of Bert

Here is the photo of Bert made by the nice people who saved him and returned him to the Destroyed Nesting Area on Sunday, the 6th.

Bert, very clearly, is an Emden Goose, very similar in looks to a lot of the beleaguered Charles River 30 year residents under attack by Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation and under attack by Cambridge, MA, USA.

The background of this photo is the hillside which supports the on ramp to Memorial Drive. That on ramp in turn is the northern boundary of the area with so much destruction.

This hillside is important because the sick people from the DCR / their agents the Charles River Conservancy did not bother destroying the hillside vegetation. They just destroyed almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.

If DCR / CRC had not run around destroying things, all that dirt on the ground would be as lush as this hillside.

One possible explanation is that the geese cannot walk on such a slope. There was no value to DCR / CRC in destroying the hillside. Their heartless animal abuse was satisfied by destroying the vegetation on flat land.

Sorry about the delay in posting. It took a lot of figuring to decide how to work around the “improvements” in Yahoo, and it was strictly a wild guess in the middle of doing something else that retrieved this lovely photo.

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Preliminary Cambridge City Council Vote: A very bad guy loses.

The details of the permutations in the Cambridge voting are beyond the scope of this blog.

“Preliminary” voting results are posted at You can get to detailed results by following links. The value of this link may not last for more than a few days after this Blog posting, if that.

It would appear, subject to various permutations, that City Councilor Samuel Seidel loses. Davis is worse. Seidel is very bad.

He is being replaced by Minka vanBeuzekom. There is nothing complicated about her election. There is a very, very slight chance that, instead of replacing Seidel, she will replace Reeves.

Seidel is one of the incumbents who was quoted as saying that the Cambridge City Manager’s destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro was no big thing. Seidel is a former member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. He was in the middle of the planning for the outrages on the Charles River. He is very strongly pro the City Manager.

Good riddance to Seidel. It is a shame a lot more did not disappear.

The reality, however, is that vanBeuzekom looks like very much part of the Cambridge Machine, although she is more ambiguous about the future reappointment of Healy. And she most definitely is not as bad as Seidel.

ADDENDUM: A nice write up may be read on the Cambridge Chronicle’s page,

Comment: Correction. I used a small "v " in her name above because that is how the sources spelled it.

I have since checked Ms. VanBeuzekom's facebook page and see a large "V". I left a message with her on the issue, but I must assume the spelling on her page is correct.

The computers on facebook are not nasty people.

Comment: Correction to Correction.

Councilor Elect vanBeuzekom informs me that the facebook computers are the problem, not the news sources. Small “v.”

Very distressing. They do get my “é” right.

Monday, November 07, 2011

Follow up on Charles River White Goose Bert and his adventures on Sunday, City Council Recommendation

1. Angelynn reports.
2. Your editor responds.
3. Angelynn.
4. Your editor.
5. Angelynn: City Council recommentation?
6. Your editor: Jamake Pascual.

1. Angelynn reports.

Angelynn reports on facebook:

Bert was on Agassiz at 6 am. My neighbors and I tried to make him comfortable on our entry stairway until we could get help from Animal Control or the Animal Rescue League of Boston. (Sadly, we didn't know about your organization or about the ongoing battle for habitat of these white geese.) I accidentally spooked him at 10 am when I went out to check on him and that's when he went down the hill, down Hurlbut, and, apparently, across Mass Ave. I'm so grateful to the people over there for knowing how to contact you and help him.

2. Your editor responds.

Thank you for the follow on and for your great help to Bert.

Clearly, crossing Massachusetts Avenue would have been a very frightening and dangerous experience.

For the information of those not expert on Cambridge, MA, Agassiz Street is about two streets west of Massachusetts Avenue and the park where Bert wound up, which in turn is about half way between Harvard and Porter Square, closer to Porter. It is a beautification of an air duct from the Red Line.

3. Angelynn.

I do not have that photo and do not know Diana. I'd love to see it as well. BTW, he had some blood traces on his feathers, mostly on his chest, and one red spot on his side that may have been a puncture wound. Would it have been possible for a hawk to carry him all the way over here from the BU bridge area?

4. Your editor.

This is so nice. It looks like quite a few people were involved in helping out this fine Emden Goose.

Clearly, from what you have told me, he does not seem that badly hurt.

The trauma involved in leaving the Charles River again would far exceed any value of having him see a vet.

We had one goose who was stabbed in the side when Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle was killed. She had one leg useless because of the injury. She hopped around for five months on that one leg, healed and eventually returned to normal walking and being not identifiable from the rest of the gaggle.

The core problem on the Charles and at Alewife is a city council which lies about its really rotten attitude concerning animals and the environment. This is combined with a massive organization created by the city manager and his predecessor over 35 years. The city manager’s organization and the city councilors’ organizations combine to do a lot of lying.

If they could not get away with their lies, they would not do the terrible things they do.

5. Angelynn: City Council recommentation?

Are there any candidates in tomorrow's election that you can confidently endorse?

6. Your editor: Jamake Pascual.

The situation in the city council race is so bad that the Cambridge Chronicle condemned pretty much the lot of them, incumbents and challengers, and then made the absolutely minimal number of endorsements possible.

The heartless environmental destruction and animal abuse is inextricably linked to “reprehensible” treatment (to quote the Superior Court judge) of one city employee in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages. The appeals court expressed its disgust at Cambridge’s appeal by refusing to issue a formal opinion and then speaking of “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The sickness is all one big problem.

The judges and jury clearly were sending a message: fire the city manager without his golden parachute and possibly without his pension.

Almost all the candidates did not want to hear the message.

The only candidate I know of who would fire the Cambridge City Manager because of the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro is Jamake Pascual.

I recommend bulleting for Jamake Pascual to send a very clear message, the more the merrier.

Bert, member of the Charles River White Geese gaggle, is saved

One of the Charles River White Geese had an eventful day on November 6.

His savior, Diana, calls him Bert. They found him wandering in the park at 1705 Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge.

This is open space ancillary to the Red Line subway halfway between Harvard and Central Square. How he got there is impossible to guess and probably not very nice.

Diana reports:


Thanks for your help earlier today. We successfully managed to capture "Bert" the goose from where we found him wandering around in the parking lot here, ~3 miles from the BU bridge), and dropped him off with what looked like the rest of his flock, down the stairs at the base of the bridge on the Cambridge side. He was definitely the same breed/species (fairly large body, orange bill, white feathers, orange webbed feet, blue eyes, etc.)--see photos from when we dropped him off, attached.

If you need any help with your cause in the future (or help with more geese rescue...this little guy actually didn't give us much trouble at all, once we had him all bundled up in the car), please don't hesitate to contact me.



Diana provided two photos taken at the Goose Meadow when she dropped off Bert. They came over odd, probably because of “improvements” in Yahoo. I cannot get either uploaded directly to the Blog.

I have succeeded in posting the second photo, of the nesting area, posted on facebook, Charles River White Geese. I cannot get Bert posted. He, very clearly, is an Emden Goose, one of the two primary breeds.

I have downloaded the photo of the nesting area and uploaded it here. This area was lush and green until the undergrowth was destroyed by the DCR rather clearly acting through the Charles River Conservancy. In the background is the BU Bridge. To the right is undestroyed and excellent vegetation bordering the construction.

The bare dirt would be like that vegetation except for the really bad people destroying the environment and the animals.

I have invited Diana to post Bert’s photo directly on facebook. I will pass it on to the blog when I can.

I will hopefully follow up in coming days with related photos of the Destroyed Nesting Area I took in September.

Saturday, November 05, 2011

Aesthetically nice Cambridge City Manager / City Council analysis in Cambridge Day

Cambridge Day has presented a very attractive writeup of the Cambridge City Council candidates positions on the Cambridge City Manager at It is heavily based on the Cambridge Chronicle questions which I gave up on when I saw no indication or even consideration of him being fired over the Monteiro outrage. There, equally, is no analysis of environmental destructiveness. I anticipate there would be little real difference.

Cambridge Day lists the following positions:

Pro Healy Incumbents: Davis, Maher, Reeves, Seidel, Toomey.
Anti-Healy Incumbents: Craig Kelley
Incumbents without a clear position: Cheung, Decker, Simmons.

Pro Healy Challengers: Moree, Nelson, Ward.
Anti-Healy Challengers: Marquardt, Mello, Pascual, Stohlman, Williamson.
Challenger without a clear position: vanBeuzekom.

Cambridge Day provided a nice individual summary.

The trouble with this stems from the reason why I stopped following the Chronicle questioning: No indication of any interest whatsoever in implementing the court’s decision on Monteiro and firing him. The answers which I read all refer to rehiring the City Manager or not.

My basis for saying that Pascual supports firing because of Monteiro is that I had him live on my cable show, asked him and he so stated. I have generally indicated my willingness to entertain similar opinions, but have not received anything positive.

Cambridge Day followed up by questioning borderline candidates and tried to get greater detail, included in their report.

As I said, I gave up on the Chronicle series. Thus I cannot confirm the accuracy of the report. Nevertheless, this analysis is the sort of analysis the Cambridge Chronicle has done in past years and is beautifully presented.

There are candidates / supporters of candidates who are friends of the facebook page. I have welcomed any elaboration they might wish to post concerning REAL environmental issues (as opposed to saving the world but how dare you object to Cambridge destroying Cambridge). I also welcome elaboration of their treatment of the City Manager with regard to the Monteiro decision. I intend to post appropriate elaborations on this Blog as well.

Similarly, if any person in a position to communicate such positions wants to pass them on to me at, I would be pleased to consider posting on the Blog and facebook.

Friday, November 04, 2011

Cambridge Chronicle Election Issue, Second analysis

The Chronicle has posted their rather clear and strong editorial on the forthcoming city election at They provide five very left handed endorsements. This is a majority. They do not like the situation, but they list a majority for very weak endorsement.

The Chronicle presents an analysis of the complaints for the final two plaintiffs in the Monteiro v. Cambridge case both in hard copy and on line at:

The details of the complaints certainly sound damning if you are pro civil rights. The plaintiffs have settled for a secret amount which the Chronicle is in state administrative review trying to obtain.

I reported on this edition of the Cambridge at

I am honored that the editor saw fit to include my comments on how Cambridge is really run. This was the only substantive comment published on the city council other than his editorial. We seem to be in agreement.

My letter concisely destroyed the lies Team Healy is putting out concerning their massive logging and animal kill at Alewife. This is the first time these details, to my knowledge, have appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle.

The election coverage was decidedly truncated. The Chronicle in hard copy ran one page with photos and very brief descriptions. Past editions have provided several pages of comments from the candidates. The failure to go that far is a slap in the face to the entire situation.

I reported that the op ed from the former head of the Women’s Commission and one councilor’s response were published on line but not in hard copy.

This is entirely possible because the Chronicle does not allow specific candidate comments by the public in its last issue. Another possible explanation is the inclusion by the writer of two statements concerning candidates whom she favored in which the writer was quoting reports in the Chronicle. Her quote was false.

I am sorry that Jamake Pascual did not communicate to the Chronicle better. He was disturbed about happenings over a decade ago which he found distressing. Mr. Pascual’s support for firing the Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro quite possibly could have been not communicated to the Chronicle as a result. Pascual’s support for firing the Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro really places him as the only responsible candidate in the race that I am aware of.

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Cambridge Chronicle blasts candidates, prints our “Team Healy” letter

The Cambridge Chronicle has a tradition of selecting candidates for the city elections in its last edition before the election. This is normally a rosy, happy event. Their editorial this year was anything but rosy and happy.

Although I would be happy to provide a link to this strong editorial, I have not been able to find it on line.

The key comments are two:

The second sentence: “Although it’s customary for newspapers to make endorsements before an election, this newspaper finds it difficult to recommend many of the current crop of incumbent and challengers.”

The Chronicle discusses aspects of the Monteiro case, summarizing: “the one power they do have is oversight of the city manager and in this situation they have shown none, making themselves irrelevant.”

The op ed written by the former head on the Cambridge Women’s Commission which was published on line which I have reported at was not printed in the hard copy, nor was the response by one incumbent which was also published on line.

My letter placing the Monteiro comments of the former human rights commissioners was printed as the third of three letters on the editorial page, quite visible. It may be read at