Sunday, November 24, 2013

Cambridge, MA, USA: Games being played to obscure Civil Rights defeat of Cambridge.

1. Motion on Monteiro.
2. Original Motion on Monteiro.
3. Reality and the motion.

1. Motion on Monteiro.

The Cambridge City Council may or may not be playing games on the Civil Rights Case of Monteiro v. Cambridge. As near as I can figure out, they are split between playing games and pretending nothing happened. And, as far as I am concerned, pretending nothing happened is just another game.

In the last Cambridge City Council meeting, the Council apparently decided in favor of pretending nothing happened.

I have done a number of reports on this case.

To put it succinctly, judge, jury and appeals court panel reviewed this case and issued very clear communications that the Cambridge City Manager committed malfeasance in orrice by destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro, the former head of the Police Review Board.

The entities rather clearly communicated to the Cambridge City Council that retired City Manager Robert Healy could be fired at the will of the Cambridge City Council for his “reprehensible” behavior (Judge) in a matter in which was demonstrated “ample evidence of. . . outrageous misbehavior” by Healy.


The following comes from the City Clerk’s report on the November 18, 2013, City Council meeting. Thank you to R. Winters for pointing it out. R.Winters communicates what could be a Cambridge Machine position: do not look at highly angered judge, jury and appeals court panel. This is no big thing. That is what former City Councilor Samuel Seidel said before he was fired by the voters.

If you want to skip the complicated technicalities, please jump to section 3, below.


City Council Calendar, Charter Right, item number 1.
That the City Manager is requested to appoint a special committee, to be comprised of both City Councillors and of Cambridge residents, to take up the work of holding monthly conversations about the lessons learned from the Malvina Montiero lawsuit, and about how the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters as an employer, beginning as of the start of the next calendar year. Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Simmons on Order Number Eight of November 4, 2013.
> View Policy Order Resolution from November 4, 2013 POR 2013 #351 View History PLACED ON FILE UNDER RULE 19

2. Original Motion on Monteiro.

This information is provided solely for completeness. If you are not worried about the history of the motion, ignore this paragraph.


This is an amended version of Order 8 on November 4, which read


1. WHEREAS: Over the course of the past several months, the Civic Unity Committee has been holding regular meetings, at the rate of about once every six weeks, to discuss the lessons that can be learned from the Malvina Monteiro lawsuit, the ways in which the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters, and the ways in which the City can strive to meet the ideals that we expect of all employers in this community; and

WHEREAS: There had long been great demand for these discussions, and the Civic Unity Committee Chair has been receiving a tremendous degree of positive feedback, and encouragement from those who wish to see these discussions continue and for true progress to be achieved; and

WHEREAS: The Chair of the Civic Unity Committee is appointed at the pleasure of the Mayor, as is the case with all committee chairs, and there is no guarantee that the Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for the 2014-2015 City Council term will be the same as the Chair of the 2012-2013 term. It is hoped that the next Civic Unity Committee Chair, whomever it may be, will continue to hold these most important discussions at regular intervals, but in the interest of ensuring that this matter does not rest at the conclusion of this calendar year, it would be wise for the City to place this specific conversation into a more stable forum; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint a special committee, to be comprised of both City Councillors and of Cambridge residents, to take up the work of holding monthly conversations about the lessons learned from the Malvina Montiero lawsuit, and about how the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters as an employer, beginning as of the start of the next calendar year.

3. Reality and the motion.

Basically, a black female councilor, Vice Mayor Simmons, went through the motions of concern about the Monteiro case.

Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean female who filed a complaint alleging mistreatment because she is female. Judge, jury and appeals court panel are strongly in agreement that Malvina Monteiro was fired and her life destroyed because of her filing of this complaint.

This black female city councilor wants the matter put into committee with regular reports on the lessons learned from the case.

As has been the norm in the case, there is exactly zero statement that the Cambridge City Council should have implemented the directions of judge, jury and appeals court which gave the Cambridge City Council clear authorization to fire Healy for malfeasance in office.

It appears to me that the voters have removed two Cambridge City Councilors, Seidel and Reeves, for failure to do their duty in this case, Seidel last election, Reeves this election, but the City Council still does not want to know nothing.

The impact of the action on the amended motion is to put the motion strongly into limbo.

The Cambridge City Council, once again, has affirmed that it does not want to do the most silly, most basic, handling of this outrage. The City Council’s nonfeasance in office puts the lie to claims of civil rights sainthood by the Cambridge Machine and by members of the Cambridge City Council.

The most important thing from the Cambridge City Council is that it wants its voters to know nothing.

This is one con game which is not working, just look at the voters’ firing of Samuel Seidel last time and Kenneth Reeves this time.

But we keep getting the games.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Cambridge Machine Stood Up by government official? A possible explanation.

1. Guest of Honor Missing?
A. Introduction.
B. Real position.
C. Thursday.
D. Side event to the “celebration.”
2. Reality.
A. Introductory.
B. July 23, 2006.
C. April 14, 2012.
D. The Destroyed Nesting Area the Day of the “Celebration.”
3. Summary.
4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.

[2012, 05-07, 18 Thicket, walk, bushes]


1. Guest of Honor Missing?

A. Introduction.

The Cambridge Machine had a celebration on Thursday, November 14, in which the announced guest of honor, the lieutenant governor, did not show up.

He was talking about resigning. Since he is reported to have resigned on June 3, 2013, that seems to be a reasonable explanation.

The Governor had other commitments. He was in Cambridge about a mile away signing a housing bill at the elderly apartments at 2 Mt. Auburn Street which in turn is about two blocks as the crow flies from the Charles River. See the Cambridge Chronicle at

Nevertheless, there are good reasons why nobody higher than the head of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) showed up.

B. Real position.

The Cambridge Machine has a very much non stop mantra: Do not look at what we are destroying. Look at how great we sound as we are “achieving” something much less.

On the Charles River, they are fighting

a. For destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge,
b. For continued and accelerating abuse of the 32 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese,
c. For the continued walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles River, and starving the Charles River White Geese by taking away their food from them at Magazine Beach,
d. For the continued dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive sickly grass which has replaced healthy grass which, for the better part of a century, survived without poisons,
e. For the continued reduction of the size of the Magazine Beach playing fields to install expensive drainage to drain off the poisons.
f. For the continued destruction of the boat dock on the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
g. And they have showed their pride by the corrupt vote and tactics they have used in their fight to expand the outrage.

And, of course, the real fight is to get an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) to Cambridge over the rail bridge under the BU Bridge, and the very big next step could be the announced plans to straighten out the Mass. Pike on the Boston side of the Charles River. Now would it be that difficult to change the location of the off ramps while you are straightening out the Mass. Pike?

All of these efforts and more were achieved or are being fought for in secret, frequently in direct violation of the stated goals on the Charles River by Cambridge, MA / its friends in the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

So, of course, in the spirit of these corrupt policies, the Cambridge Machine says not to look at the outrages they support and are expanding through the corrupt vote and smoke screens, look at a building which has not been used for 80 years that they want to renovate.

And the Governor, in House Bill H3332, is seeking $26 million in bond authorization which would be used to destroy hundreds of trees from Magazine Beach to the Longfellow Bridge. That would straighten out Memorial Drive to take the traffic from the new off ramp.

The euphemism varies. The latest lie is “underpasses” under the next three bridges. The words in the bill talk about “Historic Parkways”. In the sick world of the governments of Cambridge, MA, USA and its friends, they celebrate history (Historic Parkways) with massive environmental destruction of the Historic Parkway.

C. Thursday.

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, the guy heading the agency responsible for so much destruction showed up by himself.

The Cambridge Machine and the DCR were celebrating money for the contractors in this latest item of welfare for contractors, and the latest smoke screen.

I did not stay for the celebration. I have since noticed an email in which the Cambridge Machine bragged about the celebration, and about the DCR head being there.

D. Side event to the “celebration.”

Interesting side feature. Very prominent in the “celebration” was the environmentally sensitive small parking lot needed to support the results of the “renovation.” The Cambridge Machine supported the DCR’s plans to destroy that parking lot in the corrupt “vote” of April 23, 2013. The Cambridge Machine showed exactly how important the “renovation” is by destroying the parking lot which supports their supposed great achievement.

The parking lot was overflowing. It could not handle the small number of folks at the “celebration”. So the DCR and the Cambridge Machine are destroying it.


How dare you ask that. It is politically incorrect to ask such questions. This is a matter being fought for as secretly as possible.

2. Reality.

A. Introductory.

Here are a few photos of the outrage inflicted on the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach.

One of the key problems over the past 13 years of outrage has been flat out lying by the DCR.

One of their most important lies was called the Charles River Master Plan. The Charles River Master Plan lied that the plans for feeding area of the Charles River White Geese were for a lawn to the Charles River. Naturally, they did exactly the opposite and changed the supposedly sacrosanct “Charles River Master Plan” from the lie to reality.

Here are a series of photos of the riverfront area of Magazine Beach, the area where the Charles River White Geese fed for most of the last 32 years.

The photos were taken, first in 2006 after phase 1 of the construction, and then in April of 2012 after phase 2. This is how the DCR’s “lawn” to the Charles River was implemented as and which the Cambridge Machine is fighting to keep by telling people to look at everything else, using their own belligerent corruption in the process.

It is highly likely that the expansion supported by the Corrupt “vote” of April 23, 2013, will expand this wall to the west of the Magazine Beach playing fields beyond the building the Cambridge Machine insists is the only thing people who love Magazine Beach should look at.

The most important difference in technique between the DCR and the Cambridge Machine is that the DCR relies much more on flat out lying. The Cambridge Machine uses sophisticated lying, such as the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013.

The ONLY explanation ever given for this outrageous wall is a belligerent claim of incompetence. The DCR and the Cambridge Machine insist that the DCR does not know how to chop down bushes. Strange. In most other parts of the Charles River Basin, they know very well how to chop down bushes. The bragged of incompetence is very selective.

B. July 23, 2006.

The photos in this section were taken by and provided by a representative of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority which owns the area between Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge.

They were taken at a memorial event for Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle who was assassinated five years earlier by a person clearly implementing the contempt for animals expressed by Cambridge and the DCR. Environmentalists begged the Cambridge City Council to stop his beating to death of nesting geese. The Cambridge City Council maintained the silence of consent. The killer graduated to killing Bumpy and multiple other attacks on that day. A few months later, he seems to have graduated to rape and murder where he had been beating mother geese to death.

The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder but did not want to know where it happened. Davis (leaving and good riddance) briefly stated the location, swallowed her words and looked around guiltily.

The goose killer who graduated to rape and murder is now surviving a long sentence. The Cambridge Machine has kept the people he emulated in office and is expanding on the destruction while lying of sainthood.

[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06218]

The bridge was constructed in phase 1 of the destruction.

[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06219]

[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06228]

Compare the last panorama of a vaguely normal LAWN TO THE CHARLES RIVER to the current outrage which is being kept as secret as possible. Look at the building which has not been used in 80 years. How dare you look at the destruction inflicted by our friends.

It was easy for the Charles River White Geese to regain access to their food after phase 1. The massive bushes in the below pictures were constructed in phase 2 to correct this defect from the point of view of the heartless.

C. April 14, 2012.

[2012, 05-07, 18 Thicket, walk, bushes]

[2012, 05-07, 21 Bench, Thicket, walk]

[2012, 05-07, 12 04-14-12, former boat dock]

[2012, 05-07, 13 04-14-12, Impenetrable Thicket from former boat dock]

[2012, 05-07, 15 04-14-12, Bridge to former Boat Dock]

This is the opposite view of the second prior photo. It is exactly the same shot as the first photo in this series, 6 years earlier.

The DCR did not obviously bar access to the boat dock. They created, first a pond a few feet from the Charles River. That pond shows in the 2006 photo. Then when the Charles River White Geese loved the pond, the DCR destroyed the pond in favor of artificial wetland. The bridge, constructed in the first phase, prevented access to the boat dock by the vehicles which used to back onto the boat dock and lower their small craft into the river. The bridge is very much too small for the traffic. Besides, both photos show barriers preventing driving on the bridge.

The new bushes block access by the Charles River White Geese while giving the appearance of access.

As I said, the “explanation” is first to rewrite the Charles River Master Plan after the fact, and secondly to claim incompetence. The poor dears do not understand how to chop down bushes although they do an excellent job chopping down bushes elsewhere on the Charles River Basin.

D. The Destroyed Nesting Area the Day of the “Celebration.”

I took the following pictures of the outrage in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, to which the gaggle has been confined since the outrage at Magazine Beach commenced. It is a few hundred feet east of the area in which they fed of their barred feeding area, just on the other side of the BU Bridge crossing the Charles River.

Here is a photo of the Charles River White Geese next to the BU Bridge walking through crushed stone dumped to create parking lot near the entrance of their Destroyed Nesting Area. They have been made reliant on decent human beings to counteract the starvation attacks the machine supports and is fighting to continue and make worse through two new highways.


This is the Charles River under the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The Grand Junction is slated to be turned into an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90)so that Harvard University can move its Medical School to the current exit to Brighton and Cambridge, an exit which has been sold by the state to Harvard.

The white figure among the mallards is one of the Charles River White Ducks. The Charles River White Ducks were dumped at Magazine Beach in 2006 as babies. They were so naive, they did not know what the blue water was for. They have survived in spite of the outrages supported by the Cambridge Machine.


Here is the latest outrage. Railroad workers used the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area for parking for work on the railroad rather than readily available parking a few feet away. The dumped crushed stone into the previously untouched area and, when they left, most crushed stone was dumped.

The vegetation in the background is the very small amount of native vegetation which was not destroyed by the state during the various outrages.


Here are two of the Charles River White Geese walking through this outrage.


Here is the new highway of which this crushed stone is an extension. The orange structure at the top is another starvation wall to keep the Charles River White Geese from accessing grass under Memorial Drive.


This photo is taken from pretty much the same location as the previous, but puts a lot in perspective.


On the left you can see the gaggle of the hungry Charles River White Geese. Behind them is the BU Bridge. To their right is the parking lot irresponsibly built. Slightly closer is the western of the two highways constructed as suppose repairs for the damage done in the BU Bridge repairs. This links to the governor’s bill to destroy all those trees. Nearest the camera is the western highway shown in the immediately prior photo. This links to the north bike “highway” which is the convenient lie to widen the underpass under Memorial Drive to make room for the relocated Mass. Pike exit.

The area to the right rear is next to the now closed entrance. It seems to be intended to grow and grow. The area in the middle of the view was introduced bushes unfit for the area. Thus an excuse for whatever outrage they want to do. Remember that this area, before destruction, was filled with the extremely health native bushes in photo [455] above.

3. Summary.

Naturally none of the outrages are publicly acknowledged. And blatantly corrupt behavior is considered normal as well.

The position of the Cambridge Machine: Don’t look at our outrages. Look at our celebration of welfare for contractors.

But thank you to the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor or whomever for not participating.

Unfortunately, House Bill H3332 with its proposed bond authorization for even greater massive destruction is reality.

Reality supported through blatant corrupt behavior.

4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.

Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form:

State environmental people, DES Hotline:

MassDOT Accelerated Bridges Program: 857-368-8904 or

All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails:

Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors:


For people listening to Boston Sierra Club endorsements of environmentally destructive members of and candidates for the Cambridge City Council, you should be aware that

(1) using the world’s definition of “environmentalism,” there are no environmentally responsible members of the Cambridge City Council; Cambridge’s definition is that environmentalists protect that which Cambridge does not feel like destroying; the Cambridge pols are oh, so pious using their secret, fraudulent definition;

(2) the school committee member apparently elected to Cambridge City Council fought for the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields;

(a) his indignant explanation is that he claims to be only responsible for the good stuff;

(b) that explanation is combined with exactly no demonstration of any meaningful opposition whatsoever to the outrages; and

(c) as is usual in Cambridge, his claims of “improvements” are belied by reality. The playing fields have been decreased in size by his project!!!!! This is to drain off the poisons being dumped to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which replaced healthy grass that survived the better part of a century without poisons; and

(3) there are Cambridge Machine activists very visible and apparently very active in the Boston Sierra Club.

If you are talking to a person associated with the Boston Sierra Club, do a credibility check. Ask if they are familiar with the “Urban Ring” rapid transit proposal. This is a subway proposal designed to link the existing subway spokes. I have been working on it since 1985. Cambridge raised the project in a comment to an environmental Impact Statement a few months ago.

If the Boston Sierra Club “expert” answers “yes,” that he / she is familiar with the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal, ask how many rail options there are. If the answer is “one,” you are getting the flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge.

Cambridge’s flat out lie is that, of the TWO rail options, the only one that exists is the environmentally destructive streetcar option which the City of Cambridge supports. This option would be highly destructive to the environment near the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The reality is that THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSIDIZED THE OTHER OPTION, the responsible Orange Line / heavy rail option, the Kenmore crossing. The state legislature has subsidized the expansion of Yawkey Station as part of the massive Fenway Park area project which has gotten recent press.

Cambridge’s nonsensical proposal would move Yawkey Station three blocks. The Cambridge proposal would not work without moving Yawkey Station. The Kenmore Crossing uses the now subsidized and being expanded Yawkey Station as part of a brilliant megastation.

You should immediately respond to such nonsense from a Sierra Club “expert” by having nothing more to do with this person. Whether the person is stupid or venal is irrelevant, the person has no credibility and is not worthy of your time.

It is frequently difficult to pin these irresponsible people down in general. The deviant behavior in my test is extreme. They are pious in their demands that, if you are politically correct and pro environment, you have to rubber stamp them. Please do not waste your time arguing about destruction they can try to wiggle around.

Turn your back on them and walk away fast.

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Cambridge, MA, USA Election Results — Voter Revolt Against Environmental / Civil Rights Outrages?

1. Introduction.
2. Actual Vote.
3. Update, Direct Quote, November 10 Cambridge Day.
4. Analysis.
A. General.
B. Benzan v. Reeves — Monteiro?
C. Environmental analysis. Civil rights generally. Finally, a decent human being?
D. Updated analysis.

1. Introduction.

It is impossible to exactly analyze an election in Cambridge, MA, USA. You can guess and guess and guess. Whether you are right is impossible to say, but you try.

The vote is a floating at large election stacked so that each winning candidate is awarded exactly the minimum number of votes to win and their “excess” is transferred to other candidates until enough of those candidates get up to the needed amount. The same applies to losers. If they cannot win, their votes are transferred to other candidates whose accumulated total has not reached the needed minimum. This is done in a series of transfers.

Before computerization, the “count” took more than a week every year.

Right now, the bottom line is that an incumbent city councilor is on the wrong end of a final count by seven votes and is demanding a recount. According to the Cambridge Chronicle, in the key transfer seven votes separated losing incumbent Minka Y. vanBeuzekom from apparent winner Nadeem A. Mazen.

Two incumbents did not seek reelection. These were Henrietta Davis and recently elected State Representative Marjorie Decker.

Two incumbents were apparently defeated. These were Minka Y. vanBeauzekom and Kenneth Reeves. Reeves came in 11th with 9 candidates elected to City Council. Also of interest is that Samuel Seidel came in 12th. Seidel is a former city councilor who lost in the last election.

2. Actual Vote.

Persons elected to the Cambridge City Council, taken from Robert Winters report of the preliminary results, which the Cambridge Chronicle says did not change, were as follows, in order of election success:

Leland Cheung, Incumbent
David P. Maher, Incumbent
Dennis A. Benzan, Challenger
Timothy J. Toomey (also State Representative)
E. Denise Simmons, challenger
Dennis J. Carlone, challenger
Craig A. Kelley, incumbent
Nadeem A. Mazen, challenger, and
Marc C. McGovern, challenger

Minka Y. vanBeuzekom, incumbent.
Kenneth Reeves, incumbent
Samuel Seidel, former incumbent.

The reason for a different order such that Mazen wound up 8th rather than 9th, with vanBeuzekom 10th is the result of transfers from vanBeuzekom after she was declared loser and her votes transferred. Saying that is as far as I will go. That final transfer has no real meaning because all the recipients have already won.

3. Update, Direct Quote, November 10 Cambridge Day.

After Wednesday’s hand count of auxiliary ballots, which are the ballots polling-place machines didn’t accept and count Tuesday, only six transfer voters lay between vanBeuzekom and council newcomer Nadeem Mazen. Thirteen votes separate vanBeuzekom and Dennis Carlone, another council newcomer, and 20 separate her from returning incumbent Craig Kelley. All three are considered vulnerable to losing a seat from the redistribution of votes that can result from a recount under Cambridge’s proportional representation form of balloting.

4. Analysis.

A. General.

The new councilors are Dennis A. Benzan, Dennis J. Carlone, Nadeem A. Mazen and Marc C. McGovern.

I know nothing about Mazen. Benzan has run for city council or state representative many times in the last 10 years or so. This is his first win. He has not been friendly. McGovern supported destruction at Magazine Beach, bragging that it would improve recreational uses. The exact opposite is true. The fourth new city councilor, Carlone, has a long record on the wrong side of development issues. He is squarely Cambridge Machine.

B. Benzan v. Reeves — Monteiro?

Looking at the overall numbers, it would appear that one key result is that Benzan and Reeves seem to be courting the same votes and Benzan won this time.

Seidel made a comment in the last election that the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro by former Cambridge City Manager Healy was no big thing. By contrast, the court system up to the Appeals Court rather clearly gave the Cambridge City Council strong power to fire Healy for cause. The big issue would have been whether Healy could be stripped of his pension as part of the firing.

Healy was civilly found guilty of firing Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a women’s right / civil rights complaint. The trial judge’s opinion can be summarized in one word: “reprehensible.” The appeals court refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal decision: “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.” The technical term is “malfeasance in office,” one of the listed grounds under which the Cambridge City Council can fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Exactly zero members of the Cambridge City Council made any attempt to meaningfully implement the Court Decisions. None of them voted to fire Healy or to initiate the firing of Healy.

A supporter of vanBeauzekom publicized Siedel’s no big thing comment in the appropriate circles during the 2011 election. Seidel lost. VanBeuzekom won.

In the months building up to the 2013 election, Cambridge’s irresponsible City Council tried to get votes on the Monteiro issue. They conducted public meetings on the lessons to be learned from the Monteiro case. I did not bother attend this obvious whitewash. However, those meetings could very well have backfired. Reeves was supposedly a reformer, a civil rights activist. It is entirely possible that enough folks simply got disgusted with him and voted for Benzan.

C. Environmental analysis. Civil rights generally. Finally, a decent human being?

VanBeuzekom has the nerve to include a graphic of a tree leaf on her signs. She was part of the unanimous city council which voted to destroy 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common, many because they blocked the view. She explained her vote to me saying that the city staff proposing the destruction told her that destroying those trees was ok.

Cambridge has had a unanimously rotten city council on environmental issues.

On the real votes on civil rights, there was one member wishy washing about funding the Monteiro defense outrage. I forget which way that member finally went. He certainly did not vote to fire.

Environmentally, Carlone is worse than either of the losing incumbents. It is a tossup whether he is worse than Davis who falsely ran as an environmentalist and was very, very destructive of the environment. Decker, unfortunately, is still in state office. She and Davis were the worst members environmentally and very difficult to praise. Decker ran for city council based on congressional issues and ran for state representative based on congressional issues.

Net result: I would be interested in seeing which way Mazen falls. I have no reason to anticipate he is a responsible person, but I can dream.

Eight rotters versus one responsible city councilor? I can dream. And in Cambridge, MA, USA, one environmentally responsible member of the Cambridge City Council is a dream.

D. Updated analysis.

Incumbent Craig Kelley can possibly replace vanBeuzekom on the chopping block.

Kelley got elected as an environmentalist. Another flat out lie using the definitions of the real world.

He is worse than vanBeuzekom as city councilors tend to be worse. There is no meaningful difference on the environment among the nine when it comes to votes. Davis and Decker were for practical purposes the worst, but that is not on votes, that is on aggressiveness. Kelly is worse than vanBeauzekom because he has been around longer and has had a chance to do more harm. Kelley also has his base in North Cambridge. The crucial Alewife reservation is very important to North Cambridge, and he is destroying it.

Good riddance to either, but it would be nice to get a replacement worthy of environmental respect.

Sunday, November 03, 2013

Deferral on Reporting of Toomey maneuvering on support of Harvard University's Off Ramp to Cambridge

Cambridge, MA, USA City Councilor / State Representative Toomey has posted an outrageous ad supporting the conversion of the Grand Junction Railroad nearest the Charles River on the Cambridge side to the Mass Pike off ramp that Harvard is maneuvering for.

I have been deferring on whether to provide a report.

I defer until after the election because it would be silly to distinguish between him and the rest of the bad guys.