1. City Council Action.
2. George Despotis comment.
3. Response.
1. City Council Action.
City Manager’s agenda item number 1 from last Monday and the City Council action reads:
**********
Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,180,000 to provide funds to supplement other financing sources for improvements to the Cambridge Common.
PASSED TO A SECOND READING
**********
This means that the Cambridge City Council supports destruction of between 22 trees (blocking the view) and 100 trees (in the way of some lovely project; passed motion from Kelley) on the Cambridge Common and Flagstaff Park.
Councilor Kelley’s motion proposed that the threatened trees be marked.
The game here is that the public is expected to tell the City Council it is irresponsible to destroy these key, healthy trees.
Kelley and his friends claim to be supportive of Alewife.
Kelley and the City Council have destroyed acres of Alewife and its animals and appear on track to possible destruction of the entire thing.
2. George Despotis comment.
I announced this vote in a post prior to the vote.
George responds:
**************
there is a MGLC (Massachusetts General Laws) cite given on the signs.
Therefore, unless corrected, it is my belief that each and every tree in the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (if not yet in a database) is protected by the hearing requirement; before you can cut down a "street tree," e.g. a tree in public space a hearing must be held.
IT WOULD BE GREAT to identify specific tree legislation in the MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS; it would obviate misunderstanding.
The law should be rewritten to require the specification of the REASON
FOR CUTTING THE TREE; to my knowledge it does not.
The three trees removed from Harvard Square are already missed and their absence will be a greater issue as hot weather arrives;
I realize that there is a large Italian population and perhaps they miss the treeless cities of that country.
RSVP. Thank you for your consideration.
P.S. Have you ever communicated with David LEFCOURT, the city arborist and has he ever responded?
I would propose that the City Council require an inventory of all city trees by GPS location;
I understand this has been done but I would also require that it appear on a website so that we can refer to specific trees ideally with pictures.
I know that you do not hold the Councilors or City leadership in high regard, but ideally ways could be found to communicate with them and motivate them to at least be forthcoming with information.
3. Response.
The Malvina Monteiro case says all that needs to be said about decisions by Cambridge, MA, public employees objecting to misbehavior by the City of Cambridge.
There was a reason why the City of Cambridge fought to the Appeals Court to defend Monteiro’s retaliatory firing in response to her filing a civil rights complaint.
Cambridge communicated by its handling of the Monteiro case that Cambridge has no ethics when it is convenient for it to have no ethics and that city employees who fail to tow the line could be in deep trouble.
Environmental destruction in Cambridge is supported by nine city councilors who are kept in power by a massive machine which is involved in an awful lot of lying.
The nine bad city councilors, out of nine, will only listen to responsible citizens if the responsible citizens yell at the Cambridge City Council and wash away the filth of the Cambridge Machine.
The most important thing needed in Cambridge is responsible people standing up to the Cambridge City Government, and shunning the Cambridge Machine as it deserves.
PS: The city’s interpretation of the statute is that street trees only are protected, and the Common and Flagstaff Park trees are not. I really have not reviewed the statute because the Monteiro case clearly demonstrates what can happen to responsible employees who are too visible behaving responsibly. Reviews like these destruction reviews are normal cons. They give the appearance of protection and allow irresponsible public officials to lie of “protection.”
PPS: I agree with the concern for the destroyed Harvard Square trees. I remember what passes for a planning department going in front of the same supposed protector of trees to destroy every tree on Palmer Street. Palmer Street is between the two halves of the Harvard Cooperative Society, whose main entrance is on Harvard Square. The “city planners” were disturbed that the trees were blocking the sunlight.
On the Common, the “city planners” are concerned that trees are blocking the view, and in any case, the “city planners” have a lovely project and would love to put in saplings.
The Tree City USA people only count saplings and ignore the healthy, excellent trees destroyed to put in the saplings. So Cambridge is rewarded as a “Tree City USA” for destroying excellent trees.
And the Cambridge Machine is involved in nonstop lying that Cambridge has a responsible city government.
PPPS: One of the Machine’s favorite tactics is to keep people “out of trouble” by chasing their tails.
