BUS RAPID TRANSIT versus LIGHT/HEAVY RAIL

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s analysis.
3. Response.
a. History of the Urban Ring dates to the 80’s.
b. Northern v. Southern Tier.
c. Light v. Heavy Rail.

1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian has presented a well thought out paper on Bus Rapid Transit versus Light / Heavy Rail.

The analysis is copied in part 2. Because he has done such a good job, I feel like giving my two bits worth following Archie.

My response will be technical. Archie has done such a good job, I think it would be inappropriate to do back and forth’s giving my perception of history and trying to come to agreement. He wrote a good analysis. I will give it its proper respect. I will just respond.

2. Archie’s analysis.

When the Urban Ring was spawned by the MBTA some 14 years r so ago, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a system of 60-foot articulated buses, was its standard for Phase 2. There had been no debate about this standard nor had the concept of BRT been the brainchild from the ground up of public transit riders. Rather, this was the decision of MBTA. After 14 years, it is time to have such a debate. Phase 3 of the Urban Ring calls for light/heavy rail. The failure to implement Phase 2 over such a long period of time might suggest the BRT approach has failed.

Growing up in Roxbury in the ‘40s and ‘50s, and beyond in Jamaica Plan through the ‘60s into the early ‘70s, I was a frequent rider on the elevated Orange Line on my trips to and from downtown Boston while in college, law school and then in my law practice. Shifting the Orange Line route and tearing down the elevated structure was a good thing for residents along Washington Street from Forest Hills to downtown Boston. But these residents did need good, reliable public transit. They were promised light rail on Washington Street with dedicated rights of way.

Eventually, after too many years, the MBTA did come up with public transit (the Silver Line) on Washington Street, but not in the form of light rail with dedicated rights of way. Rather, the MBTA shifted to a BRT system. However, instead of providing truly dedicated rights of way for this BRT system, the MBTA provided buslanes along some portions of Washington Street. The problem with buslanes is that they can and do accommodate mixed traffic in the absence of strict law enforcement. The result for the Silver Line was slow and unreliable public transit. Residents had been deceived: They were promised light rail with dedicated rights of way but instead got the BRT system on this surface route of Washington Street.

The Silver Line along Washington Street has been a failure. A second phase of the Silver Line’s tunnel to the airport area has been a success but only because of its dedicated and exclusive right of way in this tunnel. But the connection between these phases, Phase 3, has bogged down because of disputes of neighborhoods affected and the expense of another tunnel. The surface routes between Phase 1 and Phase 2’s tunnel cannot provide appropriate dedicated rights of way.

EOT has taken over from the MBTA and continues with the push for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring with a BRT system. While a BRT system might work in certain communities with broad boulevards, the Phase 2 routes do not provide such broad boulevards. So EOT has to resort to the gimmick of buslanes in an effort to satisfy the Federal Transit Agency’s funding requirement of a minimum of 50% of dedicated rights of way. As noted above, without strict law enforcement, buslanes end up with mixed traffic, eliminating Rapid from BRT.

The current Southern Tier proposal in EOT’s Notice of Project Change would involve greater ridership than the Northern Tier. EOT has been unable as yet to settle upon proposed surface routes in the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area. EOT has to overcome the major impediment presented with the Charles River crossing that requires accommodations with CSX regarding the Grand Junction Rail Line, including the trestle bridge under the BU Bridge. This major impediment also affects the Allston connection that would service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus as well as Harvard’s potential development of the Beacon Yards. If such an accommodation cannot be made, then the BU Bridge would serve as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing and the Allston connection would be via Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge. Frankly, the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area has too many traffic and transportation problems currently and the addition of Phase 2’s surface routes would only make them worse. This would affect both sides of the Charles River.

So perhaps it is time to start a serious debate on Bus Rapid Transit versus Light/Heavy Rail. While a BRT system may work in Bogata, Colombia, with its wide boulevards, it will not work along the Southern Tier with its narrow, curved and heavily traveled streets. In other parts of the US, the utilization of the BRT system is being questioned, including in a Washington Post editorial, Sunday, July 12, 2009, involving Maryland’s “purple line” that would connect with the District of Columbia’s Metro system. After some 14 years, it is finally time for a real debate on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and to consider going directly to Phase 3 with light/heavy rail. If a BRT system on the Urban Ring cannot provide timely trips, its passengers will revert to light/heavy radial lines into the hub in downtown Boston and then out on another radial line to destinations. If Phase 2 were to be approved as currently proposed, we might be stuck with it and never get to Phase 3. Now is the time to speak up and demand a debate.

3. Response.

a. History of the Urban Ring dates to the 80’s.

Archie comments about the spawning of the Urban Ring 14 years ago, as a bus phase 2, real rapid transit phase 3.

I have been working on the Urban Ring since 1985. It was a rapid transit proposal then. Only later did it get watered down to buses. In the middle, the state adopted my alternate Kenmore Crossing as a second possibility for crossing the Charles River, compared to the original thoughts of crossing next to the BU Bridge.

b. Northern v. Southern Tier.

Archie talks of Southern Tier and Northern Tier in this week’s proposal. There are a lot of lovely maps at www.theurbanring.com, but, basically, the Northern Tier is a bunch of busways mostly north of Cambridge and north of Boston Harbor. The Southern Tier is the rest of the “phase 2” bus package.

The Northern Tier is separated out, in my opinion, because it makes sense for buses. The Southern Tier is so much nonsense.

c. Light v. Heavy Rail.

Light rail is street cars. Heavy Rail is the Red Line and the other big guys.

There are people running around trying to confuse the two, and they are indulging in quite irresponsible behavior trying to confuse the two.

The reason they are trying to confuse the two is that they are also fighting for the BU Bridge Crossing in the Rapid Transit phase 3.

The dirty tricks come from the fact that the Phase 3 BU Bridge crossing is light rail and the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing is heavy rail.

The purpose of the Urban Ring is to provide a viable crosstown alternative to going downtown in the Subway system. Light rail cannot provide the speed needed to get people off the downtown subways. So the people fighting, for other reasons, for the BU Bridge crossing, use any and all techniques to fool people into an inferior alternative.

One of the key techniques is to give the impression that there is meaningful competition between the two alternatives. I have elsewhere in this Blog gone into very detailed analysis between the two.

My analysis is confirmed by the nonstop dirty tricks.

Just one example of too many:

There is a “transportation” group in the Boston area whose board has been fooled into supporting the BU Bridge without ever being told that they are supporting the BU Bridge Crossing and without ever being allowed to discuss the comparative merits.

There seem to be two willful activists involved and a much larger number of victims. The two activists clearly have no concern with fair play.

Any attempt to question this silly position has been replied to with cyberabuse by one of the two.

The other of the two is the head of the organization. He supports cyberabuse “on the grounds of free speech.” When the victim publicly objected to receiving off line abusive emails, the victim was permanently thrown off the listserve by the “leader.” Cyberabuse is protected by free speech. The victim objecting to cyberabuse gets the cyber death sentence.

That says a lot as to the level of discourse. And the real purpose is to protect the BU Bridge light rail Phase 3 crossing from meaningful discussion once the two have fooled the board into supporting it without telling them that they are supporting it.

I do not think Light and Heavy Rail should be confused. The bad guys have good reason for confusion. They have no merit to their position.

Monteiro case, Hearing Scheduled, Odd Clerk’s Notice

Bob reports:

The plaintiff’s motion to correct the judgment has, apparently, been scheduled for hearing on August 26.

There have been oddities in the record concerning filing(s) by Cambridge on July 3.

This first appeared as a notice of the filing of a letter from Cambridge apparently pointing out to the judge (I can only see description, not content) that the plaintiff’s motion was improper as filed after the filing of Cambridge’s notice of appeal. Cambridge reaffirmed its notice of appeal.

On checking this morning, this entry, which I very clearly saw a few days ago, has been replaced with a notice of filing of transcripts by Cambridge on July 3.

Fancy Bus Lanes in Context

Archie provides the following with regard to the “rapid transit” buses proposed as part of the Urban Ring:

BREAKING NEWS! BRTs in Bogata, Colombia!
July 11, 2009 – New York Times – Page 1
Found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/americas/10degrees.html?hpw

This front page article by Elisabeth Rosenthal is quite long but worthwhile reading. It tells the reader quite a bit abut BRTs and their use in foreign countries and in the U.S. Phase 2 of the Urban Ring would utilize 60-foot articulated BRT buses. Consider EOT’s Locally Preferred Alternatives for Phase 2 and issues involving dedicated routes. Take a careful look at the NYT front page photo showing BRTs and passengers in Bogata. Then check out this in the inside page:

“But with [Bogata’s] wide streets, dense population and a tradition of bus travel, Bogata had the ingredients for success. To create Trans-Milenio [Bogata’s BRT system], the city commandeered two to four traffic lanes in the middle of major boulevards, isolating them with low walls to create the system’s so-called tracks. On the center islands that divide many of Bogata’s two-way streets, the city built dozens of distinctive metal-and-glass stations. Just as in a subway, the multiple doors on the buses slide open level with the platform, providing easy access for strollers and older riders. Hundreds of passengers can wait on the platforms, avoiding the delays that occur when passengers each pay as they board.”

Since EOT is now planning for surface routes through the dense Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area, how might EOT replicate Bogata’s success on that areas streets?

In fact, a major problem with EOT’s Locally Preferred Alternatives routes is the failure to provide truly dedicated BRT busways in critical areas. Rather, EOT gets to the minimum Federal Transit Agency requirement of 50% dedication by including buslanes that can also accommodate mixed vehicular traffic in the absence of strict (and expensive) enforcement, as demonstrated on the MBTA’s Silver Line on Washington Street in Roxbury, South End and downtown Boston.

And consider the BU Bridge reduced from four to three lanes: what if any dedication can be provided for these BRT buses and also accommodate auto commuters?

This BREAKING NEWS! should be reflected in public comments (due by August 7th) on EOT’s NPC.

Publication Update

Bob reports:

The Cambridge Chronicle published my analysis of the DCR meeting as a highly featured op ed in their July 9, 2009 edition, top of the column, all six columns, opposite to the editorial page. The version published was my edit down to 800 words, essentially what I passed on to you a week ago.

The Chronicle underscored its good performance with the first letter printed below my oped. This was a letter from Jane Rich objecting to the use of poisons to fertilize a park in the central city and to fertilize Magazine Beach.

Jane calls the use of poisons in violation of a very clear Cambridge ordinance.

Reality is that the hypocrites in Cambridge do a lot of lying. Lovely ordinances which they violate at will are a very key part of their lying.

Reality is the Charles River. Reality is poisons, heartless animal abuse, and aggressive environmental destruction from hypocrites who claim to be Green and who claim to be decent human beings.

Urban Ring Notice of Project Change: Charles River

Bob editing, Archie Mazmanian principal author.

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s Analysis.
a. CSX.
b. BU.
c. Harvard.
d. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
3. Archie Follow Up.


1. Introduction.

Archie provides a thoughtful analysis of the Urban Ring proposals in light of the current proposal to emphasize a northern tier (north of Cambridge, with connection to Cambridge) and to provide different emphasis to an oddly handled southern tier which includes most of the Cambridge portion, plus the Charles River and everything south of the Charles River.

Archie lives two blocks directly south of the BU Bridge in Brookline, just off Essex Street which is the extension of the BU Bridge. Archie has been very busy in area planning and transportation planning.

My only edit is to add outline formatting to his already bulleted analysis.

The document is available at www.theurbanring.com, with comments due August 7.

2. Archie’s Analysis.

The two (2) major impediments to what is now called the Southern Tier of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring are: (1) the Charles River crossing and (2) Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area. For the latter, EOT is now proposing surface routes instead of a tunnel; stakeholders in that area can be expected to respond sharply to this Plan B “No Tunnel” route(s) through this congested area. Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in that area is not confined thereto.

So let’s focus on the Charles River crossing that impacts communities on both sides of the River in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge, where EOT’s principal obstacles are: (a) CSX, (b) Boston University and (c) Harvard, perhaps in various combinations.

a. CSX.

The utilization of the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses is required not only to avoid using the BU Bridge by means of the GJRL under the BU Bridge but to provide access for the Allston connection for Harvard’s proposed Allston campus (250 acres) PLUS the potential development of Beacon Yards (600 acres). While Harvard has humongous real estate development potentials for Allston, CSX has to be assured of maintenance of certain of its rail lines, including under the BU Bridge and relocation of certain of its operations in Beacon Yards.

b. BU.

Utilization of the GJRL under the BU Bridge requires an arrangement with BU regarding a connection by means of a tunnel under the Boston side of the BU Bridge to the easterly side in the area of BU’s Academy. What might BU require in exchange? For one, BU will have to relocate its Academy, where, BU has yet to disclose. Also, BU wants to develop air rights over the MA Turnpike Expansion along the southerly side of Commonwealth Avenue in Brookline between Essex and Carlton Street bridge and between the latter and St. Mary’s Street, bounded on the southerly side by Brookline’s Mountfort Street. In addition, BU has been floating the idea of a BU “beach” on the northerly side of Commonwealth Avenue (Boston) presumably covering over a portion of Storrow Drive down to the Charles River. BU’s “beach” proposal seems to include the closure of the short University Road that provides convenient commuter access to and from Storrow Drive East. This is all long range on the part of BU due to its lack of funds.

c. Harvard.

Harvard owns the land underlying Beacon Yards (600 acres) in Allston. If Harvard, CSX and the Commonwealth can work out a deal to relocate CSX operations in Beacon Yards, a humongous tract could then be available for development by Harvard that could rival the Prudential Center and South Boston’s Seaport District, convenient to the Charles River and Harvard’s Cambridge campus. Rumor has it that Harvard would like to see a relocation of the MA Turnpike Extension’s Allston exit/entrance that might permit for a spur to utilize portions of the GJRL for a connection – including under the BU Bridge? – to Cambridge for motorists (as well as for Phase 2’s BRT buses). But Harvard isn’t quite ready to develop even its Allston campus because of financial concerns.

d. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

That’s what drives real estate development. CSX, BU and Harvard are connected at their hips in development in the area associated with the Charles River crossing that would surely impact already serious traffic and transportation issues in the area of the BU Bridge faced by residential communities on both sides of the Charles as well as commuters through the area. Recall the voice in the movie “Field of Dreams” – “If you build it, they will come” – but who will pay for the required infrastructure for this development that Phase 2 would service? Will BU and Harvard pony-up or will taxpayers bear the freight for the benefit of these tax-exempt nonprofits? By the way, what would be the impact of such development on the residential communities in the area? And will commuter traffic worsen?

More commentary is to come on the Charles River crossing for Phase 2.

3. Archie Follow Up.

I like your edit.

My hope is that residents of Allston will awaken to realize how they may be impacted by Phase 2 in conjunction with Harvard. Based upon my attendance at most CAC [ed: federally ordered, I think, Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee] and other public meetings on the Urban Ring, Allston-Brighton folks are seldom in attendance because of the many battles they have with Harvard, BU and BC. Allston-Brighton is an orphan area of Boston and poorly treated.

Also, my hope is that residents of all adjoining neighborhoods will understand the roles of the institutions with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and realize that what's good for these institutions is not necessarily good for their residential communities.

Remember, there was very little involvement of residential neighborhoods impacted by the Big DIG as it was being planned, so their inputs were not availed of. Troops on the ground must get involved with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and register their concerns.

Urban Ring Notice of Project Change

[Ed (Bob La Trémouille): DOT gives the impression that they are, for now, backing off all but the "northern tier" parts of the Urban Ring, mostly north of Cambridge. The fine print seems to attempt to keep parts of the "southern tier" alive through odd maneuvers. Nothing should be taken for granted.]

Archie Mazmanian reports:

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) has posted at its website – www.theurbanring.com - its Notice of Project Change (NPC) filing of June 30, 2009. (To access the NPC, go to this website, click on Reference Materials, then click on Current Materials and under the heading Notice of Project Change – June 30, 2009 (2), download 07-Jul-2009 Notice of Project Change.)

A note of caution: The NPC is 526 pages long. But this should not discourage visitors to your Blog who are not on a payroll of a municipality or institutional stakeholder from reviewing the NPC. The guts of the NPC are set forth in “Attachment 6: Project Change Description – Supporting Details.” At a minimum, read Pages 19 through 34 of Attachment 6; but be aware that the pagination on the NPC download is different, so that Sheets/pages 35 through 50 should be accessed AND PRINTED OUT.

Section “6.4 Response to Comments on RDEIR” begins at Sheet/page 52, continuing at great length (paginated 1 through 232). Unfortunately, the download Sheets/pages differ, making it difficult maneuvering to selected responses. Sheets/pages 52 through 54 set forth various Categories of Comment Letters that EOT’s responses relate to, listing names in such Categories. Because of time limitations, I would suggest that visitors to your Blog might focus on EOT’s responses to “Individual Comments” and selected “Community Advocacy and Organization Comments” and selected “Institution Comments.”

Beginning AFTER Section 6.4, there appear the actual Comment Letters annotated and separated into the various Categories described in Section 6.4. Maneuvering through the Comment Letters can be very time consuming as well as difficult because of different paginations as noted above.

Hopefully, the above will serve as a guide to visitors to your Blog in reviewing the NPC. The public comment period is scheduled to begin July 7th and close August 7, 2009. Beginning in the next day or so, I plan to provide commentary on the NPC, in particular as it impacts the BU Bridge area that has long had serious traffic and transportation issues for commuters and adjoining neighborhoods. EOT is suggesting with the NPC a half a loaf approach for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring with a Northern Tier that is relatively inexpensive and set to go without too many obstacles (impediments), whereas much more time is needed for the Southern Tier that includes the Charles River crossing, the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area as well as the Allston connection (read Harvard) because of many overwhelming obstacles (impediments), financial and otherwise.

Visitors to your Blog residing in communities in Cambridge, Boston (Allston and the Fenway in particular) and Brookline must pay close attention to the NPC’s impacts on their communities in the Southern Tier to make sure that existing traffic and transportation problems are not exacerbated. They must take the time to submit their comments on the NPC.

EOT is keeping its “hat in the ring,” i.e., the Urban Ring, even though difficulties – some insurmountable – with the Southern Tier may bring tears to the eyes of residents in these communities that would not be tears of joy.

You may post this on your Blog if you wish.

DCR "Public Hearing" Nonsense, A Responsible Proposal for the Charles River

Last Tuesday, June 30, the Department of Conservation and Recreation held a “public hearing” on the Boston University campus concerning the BU Bridge Repair project.

The “public hearing” was an excellent example of bad faith as the DCR papered over continuing, needless environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

This is part of a series of strikingly irresponsible projects being progressed in spite of lack of merit. The protagonists routinely use whatever technique is available to further unworthy ends.

Key in the BU Bridge Repair project is not the needed repairs, but the totally unnecessary destruction included in it. It is no wonder that none of the three “public hearings” on this destruction have been conducted in Cambridge near the destruction in spite of very clear promises to do so. A related, non-destructive project has had a public hearing in the Morse School.

The BU Bridge Repair project furthers destruction of habitat aimed at the very popular and valuable Charles River White Geese. It destroys all the undestroyed vegetation in their nesting area just east of the BU Bridge. Half of the destruction is for staging that should be placed under Memorial Drive where staging was placed for the BU Bridge sidewalk project.

The project completes the destruction of all ground vegetation located between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. The rest of the ground vegetation has been destroyed in stages since the DCR and Cambridge confined the Charles River White Geese to this tiny portion of their mile long habitat in September 2004. It would turn three quarters of the nesting area into a construction zone, leaving the geese with one quarter of the nesting area, all of which has been denuded of ground vegetation by the DCR. Even the tiny amount of grass under Memorial Drive across the on ramp would be taken from them.

In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge started starving them. It was a two pronged attack. Half their food was taken from them by the City with a plastic starvation wall at the edge of the Charles River across from the Hyatt. Their food at Magazine Beach was blocked first with excavation, and then with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River.

The DCR has repeatedly promised “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese, starting with their attack on the Nesting Area in fall 1999. The DCR explains that, in their world, starving the Charles River White Geese is not harming them.

Currently also pending is the replacement of Green playing fields at Magazine Beach with SMALLER poison maintained playing fields. The decrease in size is “needed” to put in an expensive drainage system to carry away poisons which have no business being dumped on the banks of the Charles River.

In addition to starving local animals, the Cambridge City Council is also taking Magazine Beach away from the general public. Magazine Beach, which has been used for pick up sports activities for the better part of a Century, will be prohibited for use without specific advance permission. This is an extension of the police enforced prohibition of neighborhood pick up games at Russell Field.

The Boston Conservation Commission, when faced with a similar situation at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital, ordered signs posted allowing public use when not scheduled through central scheduling. The Boston Conservation Commission disagrees with the Cambridge City Council’s intents at Magazine Beach.

The DCR has informed the Cambridge Conservation Commission of its intent to destroy hundreds of healthy trees, including every cherry tree, between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. The DCR, working closely with Cambridge, is offended that Memorial Drive has hundreds of mature, healthy trees which did not appear on 19th Century plans for what was then a treeless tidal wetlands. Obama stimulus moneys will be used with Governor Patrick’s blessing.

Part of the tree destruction project will include reinstatement of the plastic starvation wall across from the Hyatt.

Maximum secrecy can be expected. If people know what is going on, they might object, and that would involve people knowing just how bad the Cambridge City Council and Governor Patrick are when it comes to environmental destruction, heartless animal abuse, and denying public services to the public.

Responsible behavior would defer the BU Bridge Repair project until Magazine Beach is livable for the Charles River White Geese. Key in the livability would be destruction of the bizarre starvation wall, return to Green Maintenance and killing of the silly, expensive drainage system which is not needed for green maintenance. The nesting area, as well, should be allowed to the Charles River White Geese for uses as they deem fit, including the nesting uses which they have done there for 28 years. Destruction should be limited to needed destruction, not the outrageous staging use which belongs under Memorial Drive.

It would also be minimal for the Cambridge City Council to behave as responsibly as the Boston Conservation Commission and return Magazine Beach to use by the public when it is not otherwise scheduled.

Plus, it would be nice to refrain from destroying hundreds of healthy, mature trees because they do not appear on a 19th Century plan for what was then a treeless tidal wetlands, and do not do that part of the starvation attacks.

Monteiro Case: Plaintiff wants decision changed; Cambridge works on appeal package

1. Plaintiff files to change Judgment.
2. Cambridge still working on appeal package.
3. Analysis.


Bob Reports.

1. Plaintiff files to change Judgment.

The plaintiff filed the following on June 26:

1 Plaintiff Monteiro's Motion To Clarify, Alter And Amend The Court's
2 Judgment On Jury Verdicts Dated June 2, 2009 And Request For Hearing;
3 Defendnat's opposition to Plaintiff Monteiro's Motion To Clarify,
4 Alter And Amend The Court's Judgment On Jury Verdicts Dated June 2,
5 2009

2. Cambridge still working on appeal package.

The Court filed the following on June 24:

1 Court received Letter from Joan A. Lukey: In response to your letter
2 dated June 19, 2009 and pursuant to Mass R. App. P. 8(b)(1) and
3 9c(2), I hereby certify that: 1. All transcripts have previously been
4 ordered. 2. The following transcripts have been completed and are on
5 file with the Court: May, 5, 2008; May 6, 2008; May 9, 2008; May 12,
6 2008; May 13, 2008; May 15, 2008; May 16, 2008; May 19, 2008; May 20,
7 2008; May 21, 2008; May 22, 2008; May 23, 2008. 3. We have previously
8 requested the transcripts for May 7, 2008 and May 8, 2008. I am also
9 formally re-requesting these two transcripts by separate
10 correspondence to Court Reporters Kristin Simonini and Melissa
11 Spirito, respectively. The Transcripts for the above mentioned dated
12 comprise the entire transcript.

3. Analysis.

I do not have any of the papers. These reports are based on the on line court docket. Most such items are just the title of documents. The line numbers showing on the left margin are direct copies of the docket.

There rather clearly is something in the Court’s judgment which the Plaintiff is unhappy with. Cambridge would have been aware of this motion before Cambridge filed notice of appeal since the motion is served on the other party and the responding party has an opportunity to serve a response.

As far as the appeal letter goes, Cambridge filed notice of appeal. Then Cambridge has a duty to ensure the court’s records are adequate for review by the appellate court before the records are forwarded to the appellate court. Cambridge is saying by this letter that it still needs at least to add two days of trial transcripts before the file is ready for appeal.

Cambridge’s Notice of Appeal in Monteiro case.

Bob Reports:

For your information, the following is copied from docket on 6/19/09, edited into outline format:

It was filed on 6/17/09, notice sent to all counsel of record 6/19/09:

***********

Defendant City of Cambridge's notice of appeal:

From

(1) Judgment on Jury Verdicts entered on June 2, 2009;

(2) Order entered on May 8, 2009 denying the defendant's post-trial motions including without limitation:

a) Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict; and
b) Defendant's Motion for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, for a Remittitur, and
c) Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.

(4) [Ed: no (3) on the docket] Order from the Bench at the Charge Conference in May, 8 2008, rejecting Defendant's proposed retaliation charge under McCormack v. Boston Edison, and other objections as preserved.

(5) Order denying Defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for reconsideration of Decision and Order on Post-Trial Motions.

(6) Order from the bench Denying Defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for Directed Verdict dated May 20, 2008.

(7) Order from the Bench of May 13, 2008 denying Defendant's Motion for Mistrial in connection with the admission of so-called "comparator" evidence;

(8) Order denying Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict dated February 22, 2005;

(9) Order denying Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict dated June 2, 2005;

(10) Order Denying Motion of Defendant City of Cambridge for Entry of Partial Judgment dated August 4, 2005; and

(11) January 2005 Order from the Bench allowing plaintiff Monteiro's Motion to Amend Complaint filed on December 14, 2004.

Allston Planning in Context.

Archie Mazmanian reports (with technical edits, Bob, ed.):

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) has posted at its Urban Ring website on 17-Jun-2009 its presentation "Allston Multimodal Station Study" at a June 15, 2009 Allston-Brighton Community Meeting.

I did not attend this meeting nor have I fully studied the presentation. But I direct you and visitors to your Blog to Slide 33 "Coordination with Other Projects" to add to my earlier post under the heading "Long Term Planning Issues: BU Bridge ..." on June 17th. WOW!

And what can we expect on the Cambridge side of the Charles River?

On an earlier occasion I made reference to the rail yards in Allston as a potential Prudential Center-type complex (coincidentally also involving rail yards). Imagine the impact on traffic and transportation issues on both sides of the River.

EOT's website is at: http://www.theurbanring.com.

Click (left margin) on "Reference Materials" and then "Current Materials" for CAC # 25 June 10, 2009

EOT report on Urban Ring

Archie Mazmanian reports as follows (acronyms spelled out, Bob, Ed.). His report on this meeting is in a report below:

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) posted at its Urban Ring website yesterday (June 16, 2009) its Presentation at the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) 6/10/09 Meeting. While the entire Presentation is quite interesting, residents on both sides of the BU Bridge, including Allston, should check slides 15 through 19 at a minimum since they address Segment B that would be the busiest segment of the Urban Ring.

EOT's website is at: http://www.theurbanring.com.

Long Term Planning Issues: BU Bridge / Urban Ring / Institutions, and the Impact on Residents

Archie Mazmanian reports (I have spelled out one acronym and added one clarification, Bob, ed.):

As I eagerly await the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT)’s Notice of Project Change on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring, I think of the Inner Belt of yesteryear that would have devastated the Cottage Farm neighborhood in Brookline (where I now reside), perhaps “double-decked” the BU Bridge and then devastated neighborhoods on the Cambridge side but for residents in the more affluent section of Jamaica Plain, Brookline and Cambridge active opposition that proved successful. Prior thereto, portions of lower economic neighborhoods in Jamaica Plain, Roxbury and the South End on the southerly portion of the proposed Inner Belt route and in Somerville on the northerly portion had been demolished, devastated, in the days when there was no concept of economic justice in evaluating projects such as the Inner Belt. Many residents currently residing in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge may not know much of the Inner Belt. Its history available at:

http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/

is relevant to Phase 2 of the Urban Ring’s proposal for the Charles River crossing.

For several months the BU Bridge has been undergoing long neglected repairs, causing serious traffic and transportation problems on both sides of the Charles River, exacerbating long existing traffic and transportation problems. Later this year, it is anticipated that a significant project will be undertaken to address serious structural problems with the BU Bridge that may take well over a year. But there are many other infrastructure issues and future projects in addition to Phase 2 in the area of the BU Bridge that need to be addressed in assessing Phase 2’s Charles River crossing.

1. A large portion of Commonwealth Avenue at the BU Bridge serves as a bridge over the MA Turnpike Extension that has serious structural problems. The B Commonwealth Green Line Branch trolleys are required to slow down to a crawl in passing over this bridge. This would be a major project. Consider the steps required to be taken to minimize traffic flow problems on the Extension and how this would be handled above at the Commonwealth Avenue and BU Bridge area.

2. Boston University’s (BU) Charles River campus has ambitious plans, including creating a “beach” from the northerly side of Commonwealth Avenue (just easterly of the BU Bridge) down to the Charles River (presumably crossing over Storrow Drive) that would eliminate University Road’s currently easy access to and from Storrow Drive East. In addition, BU has its eyes on developing air rights over the Extension, a small segment in Boston just to the west of the BU Bridge, and two huge footprint segments in Brookline south of Commonwealth Avenue between Essex and St. Mary’s Streets, that would introduce complex traffic and transportation issues directly for Boston and Brookline as well as users of the BU Bridge from points north and south. I have suggested elsewhere that perhaps BU had lobbied the Legislature earlier this year for a $4.1 million budget item for a transportation study of this area that might impact its plans.

3. The rotary on the Cambridge side of the BU Bridge is quite complex. EOT has long recognized significant changes would be required to this rotary to accommodate Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses in order to be able to utilize the BU Bridge for Phase 2. How might such changes impact Cambridgeport neighborhoods (even assuming that EOT is able to utilize the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) in Cambridge)? Traffic between the rotary and Central Square through narrow streets with parking and various one-way patterns is currently difficult enough.

4. And then there’s Harvard, the institutional elephant in the room with its proposed humongous Allston campus that wants-in to connect to Phase 2 somewhere in the area of the Boston side of the BU Bridge to provide access to Harvard’s burgeoning Longwood Medical Area. While current economic problems have slowed down Harvard’s Allston activities, it would be a long range project in any event, creating significant traffic and transportation issues not only in Allston but at the BU Bridge and thus Brookline and Cambridge for many years.

We all know how long it took to complete the Big Dig and how much it cost. We know that the Big Dig’s Charles River crossing was both difficult and expensive, finally accomplished with a humongous bridge that some, many, consider attractive. Phase 2 of the Urban Ring also has a major Charles River crossing problem. Funding apparently is not available to accomplish using the GJRL bridge under the BU Bridge. In addition, there are significant environmental issues to be addressed in expanding the former as well as legal issues with CSX for its continued freight rail use of the bridge together with continued rail access on the Boston side connecting to Beacon Yards. [ed: The railroad yards which are on the north side of Soldier’s Field Road, extending from Cambridge Street almost to the BU Bridge.]

Perhaps it is time for residents of Brookline, Boston and Cambridge to take a lesson from the days of the threats of the Inner Belt to their communities and demand a halt to EOT’s Phase 2 proposed Charles River crossing. EOT has yet to undertake serious engineering studies/designs for the Charles River crossing. While engineers can do just about anything, the results might not be successful. EOT should be required – and promptly – to come up with such studies/designs to test whether its proposed Charles River crossing will work. While the GJRL bridge under the BU Bridge is “cockamamie,” utilizing the BU Bridge (which may be reduced from 4 lanes to 3 lanes) is “cockamanier;” in fact, it’s NUTS!

Urban Ring CAC, 6/10/09

Archie Mazmanian provides the following report on the Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee Meeting of June 10, 2009:

The CAC meeting of June 10, 2009, addressing EOT’s Notice of Project Change (NPC) required to be filed by June 30, 2009, was quite depressing. Prior to EOT’s Powerpoint slide show presentation, the CAC Chair Nally and Co-Chair Garver summarized a recent CAC Alternatives Subcommittee meeting that considered ABC proposals regarding the NPC. Co-Chair Garver presented what might have been a “majority” Subcommittee report followed by a CAC member from Somerville with what might have been a “minority” Subcommittee report. (I am not aware that this Subcommittee meeting was a public meeting. There was no indication of such on EOT’s Urban Ring website.)

EOT’s Ned Codd presented a dismal picture based upon realities of financial limitations. In effect he came up with what I have referred to on earlier occasions as EOT’s Plan B:

1. Use of the BU Bridge for Phase 2’s Charles River crossing; and
2. Surface routes – NO TUNNEL! – through the LMA/Fenway.

In addition, EOT’s slide show provided illustrations of Phase 2 segmented. Rather than attempt to describe them, those interested should periodically check EOT’s Urban Ring website for its anticipated posting of its presentation. [Note: Co-Chair Garver mentioned that EOT’s consultants contract expired at 2:30 PM on June 10th, which may impact activities on EOT’s website.]

Those who reviewed EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS are aware of “major impediments” described therein for various portions of Phase 2. In effect, these “major impediments” were repeated at this CAC meeting with subtle suggestions that not only have they not been resolved but perhaps may become more difficult to resolve, especially involving CSX easements critical to the Charles River crossing and accommodating Harvard’s Allston campus. I sense anxieties similar to the current situation nationally with General Motors and Chrysler that seems to get worse with time. The “Ring” may be breaking apart.

EOT’s required NPC will include responses to written comments from the public. These comments can be viewed at EOT’s website. For residents of Cambridge, Boston (especially Allston and Brighton) and Brookline who visit your Blog, I suggest a look at my comment letters at page 40 (27 pages) and at page 67 (2 pages), where I focus primarily on the Charles River crossing for Phase 2. While lengthy, my comments written in narrative form may be both informative and entertaining. The serious traffic and transportation issues involved with the BU Bridge on both sides of the Charles River impact these communities negatively as demonstrated on a daily basis. Just imagine the addition of the 60-foot articulated BRT buses to the current traffic.

There will be a public comment period, perhaps beginning July 8th, on EOT’s NPC that is to be filed by June 30th. Those interested should keep an eye on EOT’s website for postings. I had in an earlier letter described the requirement for the NPC as in effect a “do-over” of EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS. I can hardly wait.

During the public comment period for this meeting that ran quite late, Fred Salvucci provided some wise observations that may not be heeded. I also made some comments. In advance of this meeting based upon media reports on MA’s growing financial and ethical problems as well as on transportation issues, I came up with what might be considered a “sound bite” for the media if the media covered the Urban Ring and these CAC meeting, such coverage being non-existent. Accordingly my public comments included in substance:

“There is not enough POLITICAL VIAGRA in MA that would be required to straighten out the 60-foot articulated BRT buses of Phase 2.”

Times are tough financially – and politically – here in MA. But matters will only get worse if public transit and other transportation issues are not properly addressed and resolved. People have to be able to get to their jobs and back home.

By the way, Barry Steinberg has published “An Unofficial Condensation of Public Comments Prepared for the Association for Public Transportation, Inc.” providing an alphabetical listing of those who submitted public comments, their sequence on EOT’s CD-ROM, and a digest of portions that includes the CD-ROM page where a comment letter is located (as well as its length in pages), which provides convenience to those interested in reading some of the comment letters. Barry’s work runs some 21 pages. It is possible it may have been posted on the Internet. I’ll check with Barry and provide a link, if it has been posted.

President Obama and Governor Patrick to Needlessly Destroy Hundreds of Healthy Trees on the Cambridge Side of the Charles River in Massachusetts.

Bob Reports:

I lost part of the title. The full title is: President Obama and Governor Patrick to Needlessly Destroy Hundreds of Healthy Trees on the Cambridge Side of the Charles River in Massachusetts. Needless and silly environmental destruction part of the “economic stimulus.”

The following has been posted to Governor Patrick at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us. President Obama places a character limit, so I will post a link to this blog posting with the index and whatever else I can get in that will fit the character limit. The president's URL is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

1. DCR Announces Obama moneys for environmental destruction.
2. The Details of the Project.
3. The DCR Record on the Charles River.
4. Supposed benefits from the Environmental Destruction.
5. Longtime supporter bemoans destruction of EVERY cherry tree.
6. Magazine Beach in context.
7. Ongoing poisoning of the Charles River.
8. Yet more lies: “Saving” Trees by Destroying them Next Week.
9. BU Bridge to be transferred to Massachusetts Highways. Mass Highways vetoes or delays some environmental destruction.
10. Destructive Plans proceed.
11. Accomplice, Cambridge City Manager, may be fired for Civil Rights behavior called “reprehensible” by judge and jury.
12. Summary.


1. DCR Announces Obama moneys for environmental destruction.

Environmentally destructive state bureaucrats from Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation bragged to the Cambridge (MA) Conservation Commission Monday, June 8. They stated that they were securing funds for their long moribund so-called “Historical Parkways” project. This project is a major part of plans to destroy more than 449 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge on the Cambridge side of the Charles River.

2. The Details of the Project.

The bureaucrats claim they are implementing nineteenth century plans for the riverbanks. They neglect to mention that, in the nineteenth century the area was a tidal marsh. When the “Memorial Drive Esplanade” was built it generally was thought to be a major improvement over the wetlands destroyed. Today construction of the “Esplanade” would be an environmental crime, contrary to the Wetlands Protection Act.

The DCR's current “restoration” returns to destroying the environment. Hundreds of healthy trees not in the original plans, including all cherry trees, are to be destroyed.

Literally digging holes in the median of this section of Memorial Drive and filling them would be a better use of federal stimulus money. Instead the DCR is using our tax dollars to destroy beautiful, healthy trees that give pleasure to us all--for a stale and sterile “restoration.”

3. The DCR Record on the Charles River.

The bureaucrats, twice a year, destroy all protective vegetation on the Charles River below the Watertown Dam thus driving away migratory birds. The only exception is a bizarre wall of bushes blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. This blockage was bragged about as assisting swimming. The “native” vegetation introduced by the bureaucrats proceeded to repeatedly die because it was unfit for the environment.

Their representative brags that this wall starves local resident waterfowl. The wall of bushes was introduced in 2004 with the explanation that it would assist swimming on the Charles. The bureaucrats have bragged since 2000 that they have no intention to harm the local animal residents, the Charles River White Geese. They explain that starving them is not harming them.

The Charles River White Geese are a very popular tourist attraction. They have resided on the Cambridge side of the Charles River since 1981. They are in the way of the plans of the DCR for the Charles River. The DCR is aggressively destroying all living beings below the Watertown dam.

4. Supposed benefits from the Environmental Destruction.

The principal achievement of the “Historical Parkways” project will be to straighten out Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

Supporters of the DCR brag about how great Memorial Drive will look in 40 years. Even the supporters, however, blanche at the outrageous destruction.

5. Longtime supporter bemoans destruction of EVERY cherry tree.

One longtime supporter of the project, at the Monday meeting, commented on the DCR’s plans to destroy every Cherry Tree between Magazine Beach (just west of the BU Bridge) and the Longfellow Bridge. It seems that, when the planners were making plans for this wasteland a century and a half ago, they did not think of putting in Cherry Trees. So all those healthy Cherry Trees will not be allowed to live out their lives and will be destroyed because they were not included in these century and a half old plans to improve a wasteland which has not existed for a century.

6. Magazine Beach in context.

Presently ongoing is a project to “improve” Magazine Beach playing fields located just west of the BU Bridge. The playing fields are being “improved” by REDUCING the acreage of the playing fields, by replacing green maintenance with poison maintenance, by barring the public from its traditional ready access prohibiting use without prior approval and by making the grass poisonous to feeding waterfowl.

Average humans have never seen any need to “improve” these sixty or so year old playing fields.

7. Ongoing poisoning of the Charles River.

The precursor to the Magazine Beach “improvements” were the “improvements” to Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles, just east of the Longfellow Bridge, near Massachusetts General Hospital. The DCR’s beloved poisons did not work as well as green maintenance. So the DCR tossed on Tartan, labeled against use near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge from algae infestation. That algae infestation now returns annually.

8. Yet more lies: “Saving” Trees by Destroying them Next Week.

In the tenor of the bureaucrats’ attacks on the Charles River White Geese while bragging no intent to harm, the bureaucrats brag that they are “saving” perhaps hundreds of trees in the “Historical Parkways” project by “phasing” their destruction. Translation of “phasing”: the “saved” trees will be destroyed outside the time period they brag about.

“Saving” trees by “phasing” falls into the same category as not “harming” by starving, just another of the very varied techniques of the bureaucrats to lie about their very bad projects.

9. BU Bridge to be transferred to Massachusetts Highways. Mass Highways vetoes or delays some environmental destruction.

Previously, the DCR had accelerated repairs on the BU Bridge claiming that needless environmental destruction in that project should be ignored as well.

A recent Boston Globe report indicates that Massachusetts Highways has vetoed the accelerated work on the BU Bridge.

Since the starvation commenced at Magazine Beach, the DCR consigned the Charles River White Geese to an area immediately east of the BU Bridge, extending to the BU Boathouse. The DCR has since then destroyed all ground vegetation in the area except for vegetation they intended to destroyed as part of the BU Bridge project. Half of that vegetation destruction is for staging that should be put under a nearby Memorial Drive overpass.

It seems certain that the state legislature will reassign to Mass. Highways ownership of the bridges currently owned by the DCR and may be reassigned boulevards as well.

10. Destructive Plans proceed.

It is uncertain if the hundreds of trees slated for needless destruction will be able to wait for transfer of Memorial Drive to a responsible bureaucracy. Earlier complaints to Governor Patrick about multiple instances of outrageous environmental destruction by the DCR have been ignored or passed to the DCR for comment.

Monday night, the DCR disclosed that their plans would include a starvation wall at the Charles River just east of the BU Boathouse. This would block access to that grass for feeding by the Charles River White Geese. The 2004 starvation attack included a similar starvation wall erected by the City of Cambridge in this location.

11. Accomplice, Cambridge City Manager, may be fired for Civil Rights behavior called “reprehensible” by judge and jury.

Also associated with the environmental destruction on the Charles River is the Cambridge City Manager. He has a lot of other environmental destruction on his record.

The Cambridge City Council is currently considering the civil rights case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, on which judgment was issued June 4, 2009. Judge and jury awarded the plaintiff $5 million including $3.5 million penal damages. According to judge and jury, the Cambridge City Manager retaliated against a black woman Cape Verdean department head. She had the “effrontery” to file a civil rights complaint. So she was retaliated against and fired. The judge’s one word description was “reprehensible.”

The judge’s opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. The final judgment may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/judgment-entered-in-monteiro-case-12.html.

The Cambridge City Council is currently considering whether to fund an appeal. The City Council claims to have a strong record on civil rights, but they also claim a strong record on environmentalism. Their records belies their claims on environmentalism. The city council is funding the outrage at Magazine Beach.

A reasonable response by an entity with the civil rights verbiage issued by the Cambridge City Council would be to fire the Cambridge City Manager. That would, in turn, greatly reduce the destructive pressure on the Charles River. There seems to be a consensus that the Cambridge City Council does not have the integrity to do so.

12. Summary.

So the world is faced with a rogue bureaucracy, charged with protecting the environment and aggressively destroying it.

In the background are a governor and a president who may or may not be concerned about the environment, and a city council with a bad environmental record which may possibly fire one of the key actors, their city manager.

Boston Conservation Commission defends public from DCR, striking difference from Cambridge.

1. Commendable Action on Ebersol Field.
2. Cambridge does not want to know it.

Bob reports:

1. Commendable Action on Ebersol Field.

Wednesday evening, June 10, I attended the Boston Conservation Commission hearing on fencing proposed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation for Ebersol Fields on the Charles River across from Massachusetts General Hospital. This facility is the model upon which Magazine Beach is based and is of great concern to us.

The member from the Back Bay dwelt in detail on access for the public to the premises.

Access, for animals and humans, is one of the many shocking aspects to the ongoing outrage at Magazine Beach. The terms of the contract call for Cambridge to regulate access.

Cambridge has shown at Russell Field in North Cambridge how they regulate access. The Police have thrown kids off at least one field for playing there without an advance reservation.

I had to cross examine the DCR representative quite intensely.

The Back Bay rep got the hint and squarely asked about public use of fields which have not been reserved without getting separate and advance permission. He got the DCR to agree to such use.

Signage at Ebersol Fields will expressly allow the public to use unused fields.

2. Cambridge does not want to know it.

I had first learned of this problem from a meeting of the North Cambridge neighborhood entity. It has clear connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

The group met after the Boston Conservation Commission meeting.

I went there and asked to make a brief announcement at the end of the meeting.

I was denied permission to announce the victory. I was told to come to the next meeting, strictly on Russell Field.

This group has a significant visibility in the group “defending” Alewife by opposing private destruction of an ancillary area and supporting public destruction of the reservation itself.

Key members of the group have been very visible in the more than 10 years of downzonings written by the Cambridge City Manager. Too many of these petitions accomplish exactly the opposite of their claimed results through undisclosed fine print. One of the group’s first activities was to push through a City Manager zoning proposal which wiped out residential districts on north Massachusetts Avenue, districts which would require open space at the sidewalk. The upzoning drastically increased development allowed on those lots, on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue going west from Rindge Avenue.

The chair had a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle today defending the Cambridge City Manager. He says the lawyers made Healy due it. I have filed a response. They may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x986603944/Letter-City-should-get-another-lawyer.

"That’s the way things are done in Cambridge."

Bob Reports:

The following letter was printed on line on June 6, 2009 by the Cambridge Chronicle:

Reading the city solicitor’s very strong op ed to the Chronicle on Monteiro versus Cambridge reminds me of an incident which personally concerned me several years ago.

An employee of the Election Department trashed 51 out of 100 signatures on my election papers, trashing the papers. He objected to my turning in original signatures on forms that were photocopies of his forms. He did so in clear and direct violation of a Supreme Judicial Court case concerning Jack E. Robinson, a Republican candidate for governor. I informed him of the case. He informed me that the way he did things was the “way things are done in Cambridge.”

A lawyer with the state election people told a friend of mine that it was inconceivable that any city solicitor would support the Election Department’s action. The city solicitor’s office supported the action. A bunch of city appointed lawyer members on the election commission also supported the action of the employee in spite of the very clear wording of the Jack E. Robinson case.

Grievances against a list of departments damned by the guest editorial that followed the editor’s editorial sounded like old home week.

Judgment entered in Monteiro case, 1/2 Million added in interest

Bob Reports:

The following judgment was entered in the Monteiro case, today, June 2, 2009. This is taken from the Court Docket which loses all paragraphing. I have inserted my interpretation of paragraphing.


JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICTS: It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:


With regard to the first trial of this case in 2005,

that judgment enter for the defendant City of Cambridge with respect to plaintiff Malvina Monteriro's underlying claims for discrimination in accordance with the Special Verdicts returned by the jury on February 24, 2005,

that the plaintiff take nothing on such claims, and that the defendant City of Cambridge recover its costs of that action.


With regard to the second trial of this action in 2008,

that the plaintiff Malvina Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment simple interest at he rate of 12% per annum from January 18, 2005 to June 2, 2009 in the amount of $557,459.26;

(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with interest from April 24, 2009, the date of this Court's ruling on the defendant's post-trial motions to June 2, 2009 in the amount of $44,877.11;

(c) reasonable attorneys's fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court hereafter.

Dated: June 2, 2009

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Copies mailed 6/2/2009

BU Bridge: Mass Highways stands up to DCR

Bob reports:

I have filed the following with the Governor of Massachusetts at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us:


The filing is quite self-explanatory. One brief comment. The Cambridge City Manager’s people have for many years vilified Mass Highways and glorified the Department of Conservation and Recreation when Mass Highways is proposed to take over responsibilities of DCR.

Mass. Highways is apparently slated to take over the BU Bridge.

Mass Highways’ first action reaffirms the long record of the Cambridge City Manager’s organization: listen to what they say and believe the opposite.

Mass Highways is moving in the right direction against a reprehensible foe, and few governments other than that of the City of Cambridge can brag of a decision of judge and jury that its government is reprehensible. The decision is against the City of Cambridge, but it is silly to think of any meaningful difference between Cambridge and the DCR.


Governor
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

RE: BU Bridge: Mass Highways stands up to DCR

On May 30, 2009, the Boston Globe printed an article on the BU Bridge with its proposed “repairs.”

The Department of Conservation and Recreation wants to go forward with the BU Bridge repairs project immediately with its unnecessary environmental destruction. Mass Highways which is taking over the bridge from the DCR sees no need for immediate work.

The Cambridge City Manager’s people in Cambridgeport passed on the link for the report. It is: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/30/efforts_to_renovate_bu_bridge_stall_between_state_agencies/.

People who read like the Cambridge City Manager’s people (including one who definitely is) passed comments on the matter to the Globe site. I posted a comment as well.

It is possible that the difference is a matter of opinion. Cambridge’s pols commonly see things exactly the opposite of people in the real world, and Cambridge’s pols are commonly wrong when they do that. The City Manager types’ party line on the DCR is that the DCR is bordering on sainthood. Reality is that the DCR is strikingly close to the Cambridge City Manager. But then the Cambridge Pols have problems, in reality, saying negative things about the Cambridge City Manager.

A few thoughts, expanding on my Globe comments:


I think that, to evaluate the opinions of the DCR, you just have to look at the words and the actions of the DCR in the recent past on matters supposedly within their own expertise.

The DCR is responsible for the environment. The DCR twice yearly destroys all protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds.

The DCR is responsible for the environment. The DCR poisoned the Charles River by dumping Tartan on Ebersol Fields a few years back. The next day, annually recurring algae poisoned the Charles River.

The DCR is responsible for the environment. The DCR has been destroying ground vegetation from the BU Bridge to the BU Boathouse since 2004. The only vegetation not destroyed to date would be the vegetation destroyed by this project. A significant part of the project's destroyed vegetation would be for staging that should be put under Memorial Drive.

The DCR claims to want swimming in the Charles River. The poisoning at Ebersol Fields does not seem compatible with swimming.

The DCR has installed a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at Magazine Beach preventing access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This bizarre wall is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River which the DCR does not destroy twice a year.

The key bureaucrat brags that the bizarre wall starves the local resident Charles River White Geese.

The big victim of the BU Bridge project is the Charles River White Geese.

The accumulation of projects by the DCR rather clearly shows an ongoing destruction of all living creatures on the Charles River. The BU Bridge project as implemented by the DCR continues that destruction.

The nearby Magazine Beach project is a waste of taxpayer money. It replaces perfectly good playing fields with a SMALLER footage of playing fields that need to be maintained with fertilizers rather than the prior green maintenance.

Very clearly, the BU Bridge project's most important achievement is the environmental destruction for which the DCR is so aggressively working.

One very major advantage to a delay from a wildlife point of view would be to time harm to the environment so as to minimize harm. This, however, would call for an abrupt shift at Magazine Beach.

There is no excuse whatsoever for the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which blocks access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River which the DCR does NOT destroy TWICE yearly. The key bureaucrat brags that it starves the Charles River White Geese.

This bizarre wall should be destroyed as much as is possible without harm to the land.

The destruction of the Green Maintenance at Magazine Beach should be reversed.

A massive drainage system is being installed to drain the DCR’s beloved poisons away from the Charles. That Drainage System is drastically reducing the athletic playing fields at Magazine Beach. You do away with the poisons, you do away with the need to drain, you do away with the REDUCTION in playing fields.

Similarly, you do away with the poisons and the bizarre wall, and the Charles River White Geese can return to their habitat since 1981, Magazine Beach, and the needed food there.

But time is necessary to neutralize the totally unneeded mudpit which has been created.

The Mass Highways delay could provide that time, but responsible behavior is needed as well at Magazine Beach.

Would it be possible for Mass Highways to completely take over the DCR?

It sounds like we finally have a responsible agency on the Charles.

The proper action for the Cambridge City Council in Monteiro v. Cambridge

Bob reports:

The judge in Monteiro v City of Cambridge, on or about June 2, will take action that commences the appeals period in this case. The Cambridge City Council has started to position itself to evaluate whether the City Council will fund an appeal.

I have been told that the Cambridge City Council is not capable of doing what should be done on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This opinion is based on the individual limitations of the members of the Cambridge City Council.

I personally think that people who so clearly and publicly claim to stand for civil rights might actually stand for civil rights. And the Monteiro case involves the deliberate destruction of the life of a black woman, Cape Verdean, department head in response to her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Chronicle editor has done an excellent job evaluating this case as a personal matter of the City Manager.

This evaluation should feature in the decision of the Cambridge City Council on whether or not to fund an appeal.

If the Cambridge City Council does fund an appeal, the fact that this case is a personal matter with regard to the Cambridge City Manager should feature in the voters’ evaluation of the qualifications of the members of the City Council to hold office.

The very strong opinion of judge and jury is that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in clear and knowing violation of civil rights laws protecting Ms. Monteiro’s right to file a civil rights complaint. His action has been determined illegal and “reprehensible.”

The judge’s decision tears apart each and every argument of the Cambridge City Manager in court. That decision may be read on the Internet at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. That decision includes a shocking evaluation of the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager.

If the Monteiro decision is not appealed, the City Manager’s treatment of Malvina Monteiro is a matter which has been litigated.

The City Manager has rather strong clauses in his contract paying him a large golden parachute should he be fired. It is not unthinkable for such clauses to be found void as against public policy in the face of such a court decision.

I see nothing complicated about it.

We have nine city councilors who claim to be pro-civil rights.

We have nine city councilors who should be accepting the decision of judge and jury and voting to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Change in start of BU Bridge repairs

1. Introductory.
2. Press Release from DCR.
3. Afterthought.

Bob reports:

1. Introductory.

The following Press Release was issued by the DCR on May 15, 2009, and forwarded by the Cambridge City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association on their listserve on May 18.

The key part of this is the comment on the BU Bridge repair project and its needless destructiveness to the environment. This is a change from the announcement I passed on from a planning group meeting last week.

The anticipated bid date is repeated as early June.

Commencement of work is now scheduled for fall.

This change in commencement of work is very clearly to fit it with Cambridge practices.

The hypocrites lie about themselves during election campaigns, and they do the really rotten stuff the week after the election.

I am rotating between eight plus bad guys and 7½ plus bad guys. My increasing evaluation is to look at Councilor Kelley’s conversion to a statement of support for the Green at Magazine Beach in light of his apparent destructiveness of the Green everywhere else that I know of.

Eight plus bad guys.

2. Press Release from DCR.

For immediate release Contact: Wendy Fox
May 15, 2009 617-626-1453

DCR BEGINS REPAIRS ON BU BRIDGE
One Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles

The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is set to begin repairs on the BU Bridge that will require one Cambridge-bound lane to be closed to vehicles.

Effective this evening, the downstream sidewalk (on the side with Boston-to-Cambridge vehicular traffic) will close. The adjoining Boston-to-Cambridge traffic lane also will close to vehicular traffic, but will be open for pedestrians and cyclists.

“We know these lane and sidewalk closings will be inconvenient, but in the interest of public safety, these repairs have to be made,” said DCR Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. “We appreciate the public’s patience as this work moves forward.”

A recent inspection by TranSystems identified two structural elements under the roadway and sidewalk that need to be repaired. DCR’s design contractor, STV Inc. of Boston, will design the repairs, and Unified Contractor Inc. of Melrose will start the work as early as next week.

In the meantime, and during the work, the downstream sidewalk will be closed to all pedestrians, and the right-hand Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles and reserved for pedestrians.

As part of Governor Patrick’s $3 billion Accelerated Bridge Program, aimed at quickly repairing the Commonwealth’s most neglected bridges, DCR is currently soliciting bids for a full rehabilitation of the BU Bridge. A contract for that work, estimated to cost about $20 million, is expected to be awarded in June, and work would begin in fall 2009.

The current repairs, expected to cost about $100,000 and be completed three weeks, also will be funded through the Accelerated Bridge Program. The downstream sidewalk is expected to remain closed during the full bridge rehabilitation. The upstream sidewalk, which has been undergoing repairs, is expected to reopen later this month.

To learn more about the Accelerated Bridge Program, visit www.mass.gov/ acceleratedbridg es.

To learn more about DCR projects, visit www.mass.gov/ dcr/projects.

3. Afterthought.

Public comment about the preceding project, the BU Bridge Sidewalk project is now being described as “BU Bridge Repairs.”

Yet more dirty tricks.

The game with the bad guys has always been to lie through word games and secret definitions, or, for that matter, whatever dirty trick works.

Now they are deliberately confusing the two projects, one of which is responsible, the other of which is business as usual.

Another factor to consider is the long record of bad faith. A delay which can be reversed at will can just be a tactic to catch responsible people off guard.

The Monteiro judge is right.

“Reprehensible” is a very appropriate word.

Monteiro: Reconsideration rejected, Details on Motions, City Council consideration.

Bob reports:

1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.
2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.


1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.

Cambridge filed is motion for reconsideration on May 19. The Court filed its response yesterday:

*****

Motion (P#121) Upon review of all submissions and relevant case law,
the within mtoion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Bonnie H. MacLeod,
Justice). Notices mailed 5/21/2009

*****

2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.

The Cambridge Chronicle apparently has received a copy of some of the papers on which my knowledge is limited to paper titles. Its report may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x542611448/Judge-rules-against-city-Attempt-to-appeal-discrimination-case-moot

Take care, however. The report is simplified for public consumption and, as a result, lacks legal perfection. Additionally, there are legal points which the Chronicle does not seem to understand. To the extent anything in the report conflicts with my reports, my reports should prevail.

3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.

The Chronicle report included city council discussion of the matter.

That came from a city council order signed by five members (a voting majority) which is published at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=25451. This order directly addresses the Monteiro case. It was tabled and would not normally be brought up until a week from Monday.

The initial order called for money to hire special council to evaluate the situation and for closed door discussion WITHOUT THE CITY MANAGER.

A modification order from Toomey reports that the city council has already met with special council.

Separate Final Judgment in Monteiro to issue about June 2?

Bob reports:

1. Papers filed.
2. Analysis.
3. Summary.

It looks like there will probably be a final judgment issued by the judge for Malvina Monteiro on or about June 2.

1. Papers filed.

The judge issued the following order on Monday, May 18:

******

Motion (P#107) In light of this Court's decision on the defendant's
post-trial motions, the within motion is ALLOWED. Counsel are to
provide a proposed form of judgment for the Court within 7 days.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Notices mailed 5/18/2009

******

Paper 107 was filed by the Plaintiff at about the same time as the defendant's post trial motions.

It read:

Paper 107:

******

MOTION Of Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro Pursuant To Rule 54(b) For Entry
Of Final Judgment Against Defendant City Of Cambridge; and
Defendant's Opposition.

******

This action was taken in spite of the city (defendant) filing a notice of intent to seek reconsideration of the post trial motion order.

On May 19, 2009, the Defendant filed the following:

******

Defendant City of Cambridge's MOTION for Reconsideration of Decision
and Order on Post Trial Motions; Plaintiff, Monteiro's opposition to
deft's motion.

******

2. Analysis.

The reality is as follows:

There are three plaintiffs outstanding, Monteiro and two who have not had a trial yet.

Under the rules, UNLESS the judge orders otherwise, all action on a case officially is not done UNTIL all plaintiffs' complaints are resolved. The Monteiro complaint was the first to be heard. Thus, everything would normally be on hold until the other two plaintiffs complaints are tried.

The motion the judge just granted allows final judgment to Ms. Monteiro without waiting for the other two plaintiffs.

Thus, after the drafting exercise the judge calls for in her order, Ms. Monteiro will have a judgment in hand allowing her to COLLECT her judgment from the City of Cambridge (i.e., sell a couple of buildings if the city does not pay). That judgment will also allow the city to appeal the decision.

Rules are such that the plaintiff cannot get the appropriate paper to commence the collection process on the judgment until after the appeals period expires. Thus an appeal prevents collection on the judgment until the appeal is completed.

Prior to the Judge’s order, Cambridge posted notice that Cambridge will seek reconsideration of the ruling and order rejecting the city’s post-trial motions. The timing of the judge’s request for language allowed Cambridge to file its reconsideration motion with any plaintiff response attached to it before the judge is scheduled to issue her official separate Judgment.

Cambridge proceeded with filing the motion for reconsideration.

Since the actual separate judgment will not be issued until after receipt of the Cambridge reconsideration request, the judge has left herself room to change her mind in light of VERY persuasive language by Cambridge, while the judge is simultaneously moving forward the final judgment with relative speed.

3. Summary.

That motion for reconsideration had better be very persuasive if the city expects to prevail.

It would appear highly unlikely that the motion for reconsideration will be that persuasive.

June 2, give or take a few days, I anticipate final and separate judgment. That judgment will be followed by time for appeal. If Cambridge does not appeal, Cambridge had better pay or see some of its property sold at auction.

Analysis of Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting April 14, 2009; announcement of CAC meeting June 10, 2009

Archie Mazmanian’s analysis of the April 14, 2009 Urban Ring Phase 2 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting:

The CAC meeting April 14 included a presentation by A Better City (ABC) Planning Director and CAC Co-Chair Tom Nally.

The presentation provided several slides, with suggestions for taking several limited steps. EOT’s Ned Cod did not seem too impressed with this but perhaps bit his tongue to “comply” with the March 6, 2009 DEIR Certificate issued by Ian A. Bowles, Secretary, Executive 0ffice of Energy and Environmental Affairs. No handouts were made available to members of the public in attendance; we could only look at the slides and listen to Nally’s general narrative.

This demonstrates the “power” of ABC and its development-membership that I referred to in an earlier letter posted on the Chalres River White Geese blog March 17, 2009. After the close of the meeting, I asked Ned Codd if the ABC slides would be posted on the Urban Ring website together with EOT’s presentation. He said he thought so, subject to ABC’s permission. I suggested that these became public records and should be included. In fact, ABC’s proposal in its entirety should be disclosed to the public under the circumstances so the public can be in a position to comment on them at a later date.

There were no positive messages presented at this meeting, especially in light of recent transportation events and MA budget cutting. In fact there seemed to be a suggestion from Ned Codd that the LMA tunnel might not be affordable under FTA requirements for New Starts federal funding, as MA has to be able to demonstrate availability of project funding beyond what FTA may provide; and it was not clear that MA could do this.

In the public comment period, I “tiraded” that I was hearing at this meeting the voice of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the 2003 Iraq conflict about “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns" that also seem to plague Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Public transit has major problems now, and they are getting worse. I further “tiraded” that assuming Phase 2 passes muster and is completed, say, by 2020, public transit problems surely would have further worsened in the interim, such that Phase 2 would only serve as a “band-aid” when surgery is required, in the form of Phase 3 with its light/heavy dedicated rail. As to no LMA tunnel, I further “tiraded” that the traffic mess in the LMA currently is measurable and superimposing Phase 2 surface routes through LMA should reveal the absurdity, the futility of “no tunnel” since what happens in the LMA, unlike Vegas, does not stay in the LMA and causes traffic problems in surrounding neighborhoods.

What’s sad is that the Legislature is not seriously addressing transportation issues. At some point public transit users will become vociferous, especially with the economy far from recovery, as it may become more difficult commuting to their jobs. The Greater Boston area relies upon public transit. The Greater Boston area provides much of MA’s economic activity. Solving these problems will be expensive since the problems have long been neglected and ignored. MA cannot rely upon federal funding to address these problems. The Legislature has to come up with a way to find the money—and fast! Band-aids won’t stop the bleeding.

You may post this letter on your Blog, if you wish.

Archie Mazmanian
Brookline, MA 02446

Archie now notes that on April 22, 2009, EOT posted on its website its presentation including the ABC slides: www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.

Also, there will be an Urban Ring Phase 2 CAC meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, from 4-6 PM at 10 Park Plaza, Conference Room 2-3. The meeting will discuss the “pending Notice of Project Change and review the proposed implementation strategy for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project.” Contact at EOT is Scott Hamwey, telephone 617-973-7210.

Marilyn Wellons

Further Thoughts on Chronicle Letter - Monteiro

Bob reports:

On looking at the letter as edited in Thursday's Chronicle, the editing significantly improved the letter.

As edited, it concentrated solely on the important issue, the Monteiro case and Cambridge's extremely bad political establishment.

The big problem is a very bad political establishment in the City of Cambridge.

A Clarification on Councilor Kelly.

Bob reports:

The Cambridge Chronicle has been doing very well by me, very well. It hurts to have to do a perhaps picky correction, but I do try to be accurate. So I feel compelled to make a correction, at least in this forum, on the version of my letter of praise for the Cambridge Chronicle printed in today’s (5/14/09) paper.

The letter as written is reproduced below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/praise-for-cambridge-chronicle-monteiro.html. The letter was accurately copied by the Chronicle on line.

The hard copy edition omitted the fifth through seventh paragraphs. This was rather clearly an edit to fit the letter into available space. The edit, however, kept the content solely on the Monteiro case and omitted my listing of a bunch of other problems.

My summary paragraph blasts eight plus city councilors. The text as published only really supports blasting seven. Eight deserve to be blasted as stated in those three paragraphs. I doubt very seriously that Councillor Kelley, who is the eighth councilor in this regard, would be interested in a follow up explicitly blasting him on the other civil rights issue, on environmental and animal abuse issues, and on zoning abuses while pointing out that he did not vote to rehire the City Manager. That vote makes the letter as published technically only relevant to seven councilors.

In this regard, however, I note that Councillor Kelley Monday publicly, and belatedly, objected to the ongoing destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the outrageous introduced starvation wall. Kelley did not object to the heartless starvation of the Charles River White Geese. Kelley did not object to the outrages associated with the BU Bridge repairs. Kelley did not object to the destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. Kelley did not object to the twice yearly destruction of all protective vegetation lining the Charles River except for the bizarre introduced wall at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the annual poisoning of the eggs of water fowl. Kelley did not object to the continuing and unnecessary destruction of healthy trees on a large scale by the City of Cambridge. Councilor Kelley did object to the destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach.

I will continue my highly distressed observations.

DCR Presentation; BU Bridge “Repairs”, Bridges to be Removed from them?

Bob reports.

On Wednesday afternoon, May 13, I attended a meeting of the “Regional Transportation Advisory Council” at the Transportation Building in Park Square, Boston.

Representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation made a presentation on their Parkway and Bridge Program.

They stated that the BU Bridge repair contract is anticipated to be awarded by June 3 for work starting July 4.

They showed a map of the project which included the irresponsibly located staging as previously reported. The most important part of the map from an environmental perspective was that the portion of the goose meadow which they did not intend to further destroy this time is marked something like “Geese Protection Area.”

This is the department which goes out of its way to destroy as much wildlife as it can get away with on the Charles River between the Harbor and the Watertown Dam.

This is the department which has spent nearly ten years promising no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese and then explaining that starving them is not harming them, followed by bragging about starving them.

This is the department which has timed the work around the BU Bridge to maximize harm to the Charles River White Geese.

This is the department which has, starting in 2004, destroyed all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation which they propose to destroy as part of this project.

The “Geese Protection Area” is a DCR created mudpit, with all previously undestroyed ground vegetation destroyed as part of this project, half of the destruction for staging which is unnecessary in that location and highly appropriate for under the nearby Memorial Drive overpass.

Featured very prominently in their presentation was a photo of the EMPTY but very beautiful Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital. Ebersol Fields is the prototype of the outrage going on on Magazine Beach. Ebersol Fields, as a byproduct, has created poisoning of the Charles River with annually recurrent algae infestation. The DCR tossed on Tartan when their beloved poisons were not sufficiently destructive to pests at Ebersol Field. The DCR, like the City of Cambridge, is offended by GREEN maintenance which has existed on the Charles River for the better part of the last century.

The DCR also commented on pending legislation to destroy responsibilities of the DCR.

Based on their presentation, it would appear that all of the actors in the State House support taking away bridge responsibilities from the DCR. The DCR hopes that they will be allowed to finish the Bridge Repair projects.

Based on their presentation, there appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether parkways should be taken away from the DCR. One of the projects the DCR continued to push in their presentation would needlessly destroy hundreds of healthy trees between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach.

The DCR’s sycophants brag that Memorial Drive will look terrific in 40 years.

This entity fits very well with the City of Cambridge.

Reprehensible is an excellent word.

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

The above report has been posted for the governor.

Praise for Cambridge Chronicle - Monteiro Case

1. Chronicle Reports.
2. Letter of Praise.

Bob Reports:

1. Chronicle Reports.

In the April 30, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, the Chronicle had the Monteiro case as its lead headline.

The Chronicle wrote a very specific and quite good editorial on the matter.

The Chronicle editorial may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x303487854/Editorial-Gambling-with-our-money.

It leads with:

“Gambling with taxpayer money. That’s essentially what Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy has done in a case that has lasted 11 years, embarrassed City Hall and cost taxpayers a whopping $6 million, if you include the more than $1 million in legal fees.”

Another juicy comment:

“The image of an unelected public official proposing fee hikes while pursuing his own expensive personal legal battle that so far seems unconquerable doesn’t sit well with us.”

The latest, May 7, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, featured a guest editorial by an East Cambridge activist. It went into specific examples of outrageous behavior by the city.

This letter, by Mark Jaiquith, may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x342382829/Guest-commentary-The-Bob-Healy-conundrum.

It leads with: “Has Cambridge had enough of Bob Healy?”

And comments later:

“It would be easier to deal with good old-fashioned graft, but we have something else, in my judgment no less corrupt. It’s a culture within government that what matters is the city’s bond rating, doing what He wants.”

2. Letter of Praise.

I sent the following letter on May 7, after reviewing the paper:

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

You are to be commended for your editorial and for the guest editorial on the Monteiro case.

I particularly appreciated the examples given in the guest editorial.

Cambridge has a dishonest government. Cambridge keeps the voters in control through intermediaries who do not identify themselves as intermediaries and who commonly use secret definitions and who use other improper techniques.

A government which does what was done to Ms. Monteiro is not "pro-civil rights." Seven continuing city councilors rehired the City Manager.

A government which tries to keep a handicapped elder from using her guide dog is not "pro-civil rights." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.

A city government which routinely and needlessly destroys many healthy trees, but which runs around calling itself "pro-environment" is not "pro-environment." A city government which destroys green maintenance at Magazine Beach and walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River is not "pro-environment." A city government which heartlessly abuses beautiful valuable animals is not "pro-environment." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.

A city government which destroys zoning protections while claiming to be doing the opposite is not honest. All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.

I can see unidentified representatives running around calling it "politically correct" to defend reprehensible government behavior.

I can see unidentified representatives running around repeating Cambridge’s civil rights nonsense, the civil rights nonsense which was discredited by the well thought out opinion of the Monteiro judge.

I can see unidentified representatives calling it AGAINST "political correctness" TO BE IN SUPPORT of the civil rights of this BLACK WOMAN.

"Political correctness" is other than what somebody’s handler calls "politically correct" this week, especially when the record in reality is so bad and so contrary to "political correctness."

Too many voters of Cambridge have too long been kept away from the reality that we have at least eight really bad city councilors who are responsible for the current really bad city government.

I can see too many voters being told by unidentified representatives that Cambridge has a decent government. I can see too many unidentified representatives running around who do not want to know that Cambridge’s government has been found reprehensible by verdict of judge and jury.

Your editorials are an excellent first step toward responsibility in Cambridge government.

We need to go beyond the first step. Cambridge needs a government which is not reprehensible.

Cambridge Pols to Council: Save the world. Indifferent to city destruction of city.

Bob Reports:

1. Introductory.
2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.
3. Call to action?


1. Introductory.

Below are an email announcing a city council vote sent over the City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve and my response. My response has not yet been sent out.

Of interest is the naming of yet another “green” organization which somehow just does not want to know about ongoing environmental destruction by the City of Cambridge.

The “environmental” group sounds a lot like eight plus “environmental” city councilors and the Cambridge city manager.

Their definition of “environmental” is dramatically demonstrated by the ongoing destruction. You may also read the definition of “environmental” by the Cambridge Pols organization at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

The opinion of judge and jury on the Cambridge City Government, “reprehensible,” may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.

Sent Saturday, 5/9/09

If the councilors were serious about the world's climate and its environment, they have no further to go than their own behavior on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond, at Alewife and in the needless destruction of so many healthy mature trees in their various projects.

3. Call to action?

--- On Fri, 5/8/09, ___________ wrote:

Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 8:51 PM

There is a policy order on the Cambridge City Council agenda this Monday evening (May 11) recognizing that there is a climate emergency and requesting the City Manager "to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City's responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency and consistent with the city's own Climate Protection goals for 2010 and beyond." The full text is at http://www.cambridg ema.gov/cityCler k/PolicyOrder. cfm?item_ id=25054 Three Councillors have signed on - Marjorie Decker, Timm Toomey, and Henrietta Davis.

This comes out of a Green Decade/Cambridge initiative to ask the Council to recognize the climate emergency and mobilize the city to take appropriate action. It could be a huge opportunity - not only for a new level of action in Cambridge, but to have a much broader impact. We need to get the word out everywhere - to the public and to policy makers - that the climate crisis is now a global emergency and that we have a rapidly narrowing window in which to act if we are to have any chance of averting a runaway catastrophe.

We need as many people as possible to come to the Council meeting Monday evening to show that there is popular support for this resolution. Also, we want to get the Council to call a citywide hearing and not just pass this without meaningful follow-up. Please come if you can! Public comment starts a little after 5:30. If you want to get on the list to speak, you can call the City Council office Monday between 10 and 3 at 617-349-4280. Or you can sign up to speak when you get there. Or you can just come and not speak but show support by being there and by applauding the people who do speak.

Or if you can't come, you can email the entire Council on any item by using Council@Cambridgema .gov and the City Manager at healy@Cambridgema. gov.

Response to "Environmental" Praise for Representative Alice Wolf

Bob Reports:

Still catching up.

The following was printed in the April 23, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle.

The document from a Cambridge City Councilor to which the letter refers was written by Samuel Seidel. It is published on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I, with regret, have become quite skeptical of organizations and pols which call themselves “environmental” in Cambridge .

I know that I have been publicly mocked by one key Cambridge pol because I have the temerity to believe in the world’s definition of “environmentalism”. Cambridge pols, he said, have a better definition.

A letter in this week's Chronicle praises Representative Wolf on "environmental" grounds, including praise for protecting our scenic parkways and bridges.

I do not consider destruction of the Green maintenance at Magazine Beach for replacement with maintenance with herbicides to be something worthy of environmental commendation. These poisons are destructive to water fowl and not helpful to humans.

I do not consider the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation blocking access between Magazine Beach and the river to be anything other than what the key DCR bureaucrat has bragged of: a tool to starve the local waterfowl.

I see code words for protecting the environmentally reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation which, along with Cambridge and its pols, is destroying all animals living on or visiting the Charles River between the Watertown Dam and the harbor.

The DCR annually poisons as much waterfowl eggs as it can get away with. Twice a year, the DCR destroys all protective vegetation for migrating birds, except for the bizarre starvation wall at Magazine Beach .

The DCR seems to toss in as much animal harm as it can get away with in its projects. The BU Bridge repairs destroy key ground vegetation for staging that should go under Memorial Drive . The project completes total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse which has been done in stages starting in 2004.

The “protection of bridges” has included addition of light pollution on three Charles River bridges.

The DCR, Cambridge, and Cambridge pols are involved in heartless animal abuse directed at the Charles River White Geese.

Sounds to me like the definition of environmentalism being used is the 19th Century of environmentalism: destroy, destroy, destroy, and make it look good.

You add to that the apparent plans to remove the playing fields at Magazine Beach from general public use. Neighborhood kids trying to use at least one Russell Field playing field have been chased off by the police for not getting prior city permission. This same “improvement” is scheduled to be implemented at Magazine Beach .

I am not happy.