Boston ConCom hearing on the MWRA Cottage Farm sewage treatment plant

1. Marilyn’s Report.
2. Bob Response / Elaboration.

1. Marilyn’s Report.

Marilyn Wellons attended the Boston ConCom's hearing on November 17,2010:

The Commission issued a Certificate of Compliance for MWRA work done in Boston on one of three sewer pipes under the river that connect to the Cottage Farm plant by the BU Bridge. The work finished in 2009.

Previously 2 of the 3 pipes led from Cottage Farm to another plant in Boston and ultimately to Deer Island. Flow in the long-unused third pipe was from Boston to Cottage Farm. The work was to reverse that flow, so that all 3 pipes now channel sewage treated at Cottage Farm to the next station in Boston.

It was part of the ongoing court-ordered cleanup of Boston Harbor and the Charles River. Municipalities along the Charles have spent more than $60M so far to separate sanitary and stormwater sewers that have previously been combined (CSOs).

In heavy rains CSOs discharge both stormwater and sewage into, e.g., the Charles River, Alewife Brook, and of course Boston Harbor itself, polluting them. Some CSOs still drain stormwater to Cottage Farm, but as I understand it, the ultimate goal is to have only sanitary sewers drain to it. The project increased Cottage Farm's capacity to treat and pump sewage, to reduce its overflow discharges into the Charles in such storms.

Because the goal is to separate sanitary and stormwater sewers, the MWRA would not have allowed a new connection for stormwater from the BU Bridge to connect to Cottage Farm--unlike the situation at the Cambridge Boat Club, where the sanitary sewer was allowed to tie in to it.

(The MWRA official I spoke with after the Boston ConCom hearing wasn't able to say why the BU Bridge's new stormwater system could not have connected to either Cambridge's or the DCR's own stormwater drains at Brookline Street or along Memorial Drive.)

The increased capacity at Cottage Farm may explain why Lake Pearl Street drained easily through Kathy Podgers's basement into the sanitary sewers, but Cambridge's stormwater system was overwhelmed in the July 10 storm this past summer.

2. Bob Response / Elaboration. Major angle in the sewer separation project.

Thank you Marilyn for the good report.

A few weeks ago, I reported on a decidedly bizarre bike arrangement planned by Cambridge for Western Avenue intersecting Memorial Drive two bridges to the west of the BU Bridge.

During that meeting, the July 12 flooding and the separation of sewers and storm water drains was also discussed. Presentation was by the City Engineer.

The City Engineer specifically stated that a repeat of the flooding of July 12 WOULD NOT be prevented by the ongoing upgrading / separating of the sewer and street drainage system. He stated that the one hour level of downpour was way beyond reasonable capability of the system.

He also added a point that I have never heard before.

He specifically stated that, while the separation will prevent the sewerage system from overflowing into the storm drainage pipes, the opposite is not true. Street drainage will overflow into the sewer pipes if the street drainage system is overloaded.

That overflow of street drainage into the sewer pipes was a major problem on July 12 in a favored establishment of mine on Mass. Ave., The Cellar. This neighborhood bar is in the basement of the building, on the north side of Mass. Ave. They had repeated problems with the sewerage system pumping waste into their establishment.

They controlled it and apparently kept the overflow into a limited part of the bar, but this will happen again under the separation project, and I assume others had similar problems.

Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting

Archie reports that the state is conducted an Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting this coming Monday, November 22, from 4 to 6 pm at Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Transportation Building in Park Square.

I normally enter the building from Boylston Street down what is now an alley in the middle of Emerson College, just east of Charles Street facing the Boston Common. The building also has another more formal entrance off Charles Street just south of Boylston facing Park Square.

The Urban Ring was planned as a connecting subway line to allow folks to travel between outer portions of the existing subways without going downtown.

It has more recently been converted by the bureaucracy into fancy buses. A bunch of the possibilities are highly destructive to the Fenway area, the Charles River, Cambridge and the Charles River White Geese.

The group has been converted into an existing / non existing status but the meeting could have value.

Monteiro Update

The appellate brief of Ms. Monteiro was due yesterday, November 16. Those dates are not missed and there commonly is a delay in posting. The filing has not been posted yet.

Cambridge did file a motion on November 16 to amend the papers it has filed demonstrating the record below.

Boston Conservation Commission on MWRA at BU Bridge

1. Report.
2. Marilyn Comments.
3. The notice.


1. Report.

This coming Wednesday, at 6:30 pm, the Boston Conservation Commission will conduct a hearing concerning the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission “Cottage Farm/Brookline Connection and Inflow Controls Project, Soldiers Field Road, Charles River, Boston”.

Our initial impression was that it concerned the oil spill that occurred earlier this year because of, it would appear, sloppy work by a delivery person.

On rereading the below notice, however, it could concern work that was done on the Boston side just west of the BU Bridge.

If you are interested, the Boston City Hall entrance used is in the back end of Boston City Hall facing Faneuil Hall. The entrance is at the ground level not too far to the Cambridge side of the big stair well coming down from the plaza in the direction of Faneuil Hall.

This was quite major work. The DCR apparently coordinated major environmental destruction in what was wildlife habitat to the west.

2. Marilyn Comments.

If the hearing's in Boston it's not I think about the oil spill, which was on the Cambridge side.

Some years ago MWRA announced they were changing the configuration of pipes to and from Cottage Farm on the Boston side. This must be a hearing at the end of that project.

As we know, at the BU Bridge, the DCR has opted for the stormwater system that most damages public parkland at the White Geese's nesting area, rather than tie in to the MWRA's, Cambridge's, or its own adjacent sewers. It may have been possible to combine it with the MWRA's work now finishing up, with attendant savings.

3. The notice.

In accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, the Boston Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing in Boston City Hall, Room 801 on November 17, 2010 to review the following projects to determine what conditions, if any, the Commission will impose in order to protect the interests of the public and private water supply, ground water, prevention of pollution, flood control, prevention of storm damage, protection of fisheries and land containing shellfish, and protection of wildlife habitat:


6:00 PM Enforcement Order issued to Cedar Grove Cemetery for work conducted in areas subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act without a valid Order of Conditions, 920 Adams Street, Dorchester.

6:15 PM Update from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on Order of Conditions DEP File No. 006-0647, issued for the construction of a water transportation docking facility adjacent to 500 Atlantic Avenue and Russia Wharf, Fort Point Channel, Boston.

6:30 PM Request for Certificate of Compliance for Order of Conditions DEP File No. 006-1142 from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority for the Cottage Farm/Brookline Connection and Inflow Controls Project, Soldiers Field Road, Charles River, Boston.

Walsh 2

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. General.
2. Detailed communication.
3. Citation.

1. General.

Not surprisingly, my op ed concerning William Walsh has received an anonymous response which got printed and which impugns my integrity.

You will recall that a significant part of the op ed was omitted. I attempted to at least get my final praise for Walsh printed. There have been no elaborations in response to my request.

2. Detailed communication.

I have just, on November 11, 2010, sent the following to the Editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.

**********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

In the Chronicle of November 11, 2010, you published an unsigned statement calling me a liar and stating that nobody in William Walsh’s office other than Walsh was convicted of crimes in association with Walsh’s jailing.

This anonymous statement very clearly communicated that there were no ethical problems in the Walsh Law Office other than with Walsh. My recollection is that there were at least two other convictions, both lawyers. I in now way ascribed the deficiencies of these people to every member of the Walsh law office at the time.

The following is taken from a judicial opinion concerning Walsh. I am providing documentation of one conviction because that is adequate to refute the claim of no convictions and no other ethical problems.

I am directly copying and pasting. I have omitted irrelevant procedural words in the beginning of the opinion and the opinion before paragraph 34 and after paragraph 37.

Please note that Schwartz is described as a senior attorney in the Walsh office, one of several codefendants with Walsh, who pleaded guilty and testified against Walsh. According to the judge’s findings, another co-defendant who plead guilty testified as to directions from Walsh which rather clearly describes directions to members of his office.


***********

United States of America, Appellee, v. William H. Walsh, Defendant, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 75 F.3d 1
Heard Oct. 3, 1995.Decided Jan. 23, 1996

Opinion of BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.

34
Walsh's brief raises two further issues, both unrelated to juror X. The first claim relates to the government's admitted failure to turn over certain documents in a timely fashion. The documents related to Frances Schwartz, a senior attorney working for Walsh who was assigned to the three development projects involved in this case. Schwartz was indicted with Walsh and was one of the co-defendants who pled guilty to the conspiracy count and testified against Walsh at trial.

35
On direct examination, Schwartz gave damaging testimony against Walsh. In addition to identifying a number of documents and describing the operations of Walsh's office, Schwartz testified to discussions and correspondence with Walsh that--as recounted and interpreted by Schwartz--confirmed Walsh's knowing participation in and direction of the fraud. Schwartz' testimony was thus quite damaging, although another co-defendant who pled guilty also testified that Walsh knowingly directed the concealment of the secondary financing.

36
Early in her cross-examination, Schwartz mentioned that she had "daytimers" or calendars that she had used to refresh her recollection. Later, on re-cross, she mentioned that she had allowed the government to review the daytimers and make copies of them. The defense immediately objected that it had never received the daytimers. The government said that these daytimers should have been disclosed earlier but had been overlooked when other materials from Schwartz had been made available to Walsh's counsel. Copies of the daytimers were provided to the defendant later that day.

37
Following a timely motion by Walsh to dismiss the case because of this delay, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Walsh's strategy would not have been substantially different if the daytimers had been disclosed earlier. The court instructed the jury that the government had failed in its discovery obligation, and it allowed Walsh to recall Schwartz to continue her examination, using the daytimers to try to establish inconsistencies between Schwartz' prior testimony and the daytimers. Walsh now complains that this was inadequate.

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

Now, please, you omitted the end of my OpEd, which very strongly watered down my problems with Walsh and said that, as a member of the Cambridge government, I commend Walsh and condemn the current incumbents. As a public person, Walsh’s ethics were impeccable.

My position is that I am deeply familiar with the shortcomings of William Walsh in his private life, but as far as public life goes, I prefer Walsh by a wide margin to the current city council.

Would you please correct your omission in some manner.

Thank you.

3. Citation.

I sent the following not long later as a second communication.

******

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The quote I just gave you came from: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/75/1/475186/.

A Visit to the Goose Ghetto

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Report.
2. Ellen Schloss comments.
3. Response to Ellen.

1. Report.

Yesterday, November 10, I showed an interested person the situation with regard to the Charles River White Geese.

A lot of them were huddled under the tree where they had been hiding on the day their nesting area was destroyed. It was definitely not a spirited group.

They wandered under the trees in the mud left from the state’s destruction of ground vegetation.

Many more than usually would be were at the top of the hill toward the Grand Junction railroad tracks. This area has been unused in the past except during nesting. The ganders go up there to strut for the hens.

But there is no place else.

Another visitor produced a large plastic bag full of goodies for the Charles River White Geese. He said that local markets are quite helpful.

I have been aware of past contributions by Trader Joe’s, by the Coop in Central Square and by the wet shelter up the Grand Junction. They are good people in the world of a bad city government.

The actual numbers of the gaggle, not doing a count, would appear to be less than in the past. That is not at all surprising considering the heartless cruelty being inflicted on them.

Work, including permanent work has been done at the entrance toward the Memorial Drive / BU Bridge rotary.

This entrance was illegally created by BU and the DCR in 1999 as part of that outrage. Fencing which had kept the area wild and safe was torn open and access stairs and a ramp installed, here and a wooden stair with metal rail at the eastern end.

Marilyn Wellons had a meeting with the State Senator at that time. She complained about the destruction and mentioned that fencing had been left. She intended and wished that the fencing be put back where it had been. In front of her, the state senator got on the phone and promised that the situation would be corrected. The fencing was promptly removed.

The work commenced in 1999 with construction equipment entering the nesting area the morning BEFORE a scheduled Cambridge Conservation Committee meeting on the work. It was completed before the first day on which it could legally commence.

Boston University denied doing the 1999 work for something like six months, until the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then BU started bragging about the destruction and blamed their President’s secretary for the false denials.

The work I saw yesterday was as follows:

The 1999 stair case at the rotary was barely visible, buried and hidden in construction access. The ramp created then had been totally obscured with a dirt roadway.

The sidewalk at the rotary has been widened, space taken from the roadway. The widening ends a few feet onto the on ramp so that there is a bump out at the rotary.

2. Ellen Schloss comments.

Geez Bob these Cambridge officials really suck don’t they? When will they be replaced with people that have hearts?

3. Response to Ellen.

The big problem with Cambridge officials and the state officials with whom they are in bed is that the Cambridge pols do such effective lying about themselves.

Among other things, they loudly lie that they are pro environment and fool people into thinking they would never stoop so low.

The technique is to brag about things which have next to no value and frequently are really in the wrong direction while keeping the outrages as quiet as possible.

This is combined with massive organizations, especially supposed interest groups created in concert with the City Manager’s people. These supposed interest groups give a commonly false impression that they are independent of the city. The groups normally squelch meaningful activists as much as they can, and keep quiet the outrages while publicizing the city’s “beneficial” activities.

It is a house of cards. A lot of people involved in keeping a concerned public down.

The outrage on the Charles is one of the very major weaknesses.

The fact that the City Manager should be fired in response to the decision of judge and jury in the Monteiro case is another major weakness.

The numbers are highly distressing. The only member of the city council who, in my opinion, has possible redeeming attributes is Mr. Cheung. A very major factor in this is that he has not been around long enough to earn a negative feeling. His vote on the sign changes was definitely not encouraging.

Western Avenue neighbor on Western Avenue project

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Joseph Teller has responded to my report on the bizarre anti-bike construction coming on Western Avenue in Cambridge and stretching to the Charles. He, essentially, agrees on the portion of my comments restricted to Western Avenue. He adds some good information.

My comments are posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/cambridge-ma-attacks-bicyclists.html.

Joseph responds:

**********

We complained about these possible problems at the public meetings and they said that a solution would be worked out, but that there was no plans for sidewalk plows to be purchased (as is used in other cities) nor to have a contractor with such. They implied at the meetings that they assumed no one would be bicycling in the winter months, a clear lack of understanding on their part.

I gave up going to the meetings since the designer was ignoring any and all problems that didn't meet his vision. Public input was pretty much ignored regarding the bike paths and the parking spaces etc.

Add in plans to do heavy construction AT NIGHT on a residential street where people SLEEP AT NIGHT and its a special kind of hell they are building for those of us who live here.

Cambridge (MA) attacks bicyclists.

Bob La Trémouille reports.


Cambridge, MA is one of the two most important environmental destroyers on the Charles River.

Their tactics in environmental destruction key on flat out lies as to where the city council and the city is coming from.

The lies consist of bragging of things which have nothing to do with meaningful stuff, and not talking about the meaningful stuff.

One of the many attacks on the Charles River is for bicycle highways. They brag about being pro bicycle. The reality is that they are pro contractor welfare. If it makes money for contractors, it very frequently makes no difference how destructive it is.

Cambridge dropped the other shoe on bicyclists on Wednesday, November 3, with regard to bicycle “improvements” on Western Avenue, ending at the Charles and presumably linking to some of their favorite environmental destruction on the Charles.

They are putting in bike paths which will be useless for meaningful bicyclists. They brag they are enticing in a new generation of bicyclists, and if the real bicyclists do not like it, they can share a narrowed highway with cars.

The proposed “bike paths” would be a widening of the sidewalks on the right side of the road this one way street running from Central Square to the Charles. At each intersection, the “bike path” would move toward the main road, thus meandering all over Heck and FORCING people who want to get somewhere to get onto the NARROWED car lanes.

If the “bicyclists” want to make a left turn from the far right sidewalk, there will be TWO streets on the length of the bike path where they will be allowed to do so.

In winter these will be useless. Supposedly a CONTRACTOR will be PAID to keep it clean. Will that put snow on sidewalks for abutters to clean up? Very clearly, it will force meaningful bicyclists to stay on the NARROWED travel lanes because cars keep snow packed down and passable in winter to the benefit of the bikes. The sidewalks “bike paths” if only used by bikes will be impassable even if plowed because the bikes cannot keep the snow packed down.

Hey, they also brag of being pro Civil Rights, but have no problem keeping on with a City Manager who has been called “reprehensible” by judge and jury. Judge and jury found that he destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black, Cape Verdean department head.

Judge and jury found that he did this in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The environmental destruction includes bizarre projects on the Charles which have no value except to the contractors PAID to do it, but which starve local animals and dump poisons on the banks of the Charles to feed sickly grass introduced in place of healthy stuff which survived for the better part of a Century. Then there is the bizarre wall of bushes which seem to have no value except to the Contractors who installed it and in starving the Charles River White Geese. By contrast all other vegetation is destroyed twice a year. The destroyed vegetation is meaningful, it protects migrating water fowl. And it is native. But it costs nothing. So it is destroyed twice a year, while the bizarre, destructive, introduced stuff grows and grows.

I could keep on going, but there is a lot of other stuff elsewhere on this blog.

Walsh Commentary: Omissions in Cambridge Chronicle Hard Copy

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Two weeks ago, I published an oped I submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle on the death of former Cambridge City Councilor William Walsh. Walsh was an attorney and member of the Cambridge City Council. He went to jail for mortgage manipulations in his practice of law. His ethics in public office were unblemished.

He very clearly led two lives. The matters which put him in jail were part of a wink and a nod, “getting things done” mentality in the financial sector, a mentality which probably was responsible for the Great Recession.

My oped was printed last week on line. I reported on it in an update. The full report is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/op-ed-proposal-william-walsh-compared.html.

The oped was printed in today’s November 4, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle. It was printed on page 12, the last page of the first section. This page is frequently used as the third page of the op ed section, overflow from the main two pages of the oped section. The end was omitted, perhaps for space. The portion omitted read as follows:

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

Walsh had his right to take his full appeals on matters which had nothing to do with Cambridge city government.

In the Monteiro case, the City Council is implementing Walsh’s private mentality in the public sphere. Walsh played games with mortgages in a corrupt system in which a wink and a nod were part of the culture. Walsh was never as venal as the finding of the Monteiro judge against the Cambridge City Manager.

The Malvina Monteiro matter shows the reason why state ethics laws which require the expulsion from office without pension for criminal venality in office should be expanded by the judge with city council initiative to the situation where the Cambridge City Manager has been found, in office, to have destroyed the life of a black, Cape Verdian city employee because she exercised her rights under civil rights law.

The Monteiro case is not a matter when the Cambridge City Council is sitting back and watching while a miscreant defends himself for outside behavior. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is spending millions defending the miscreant in spite of a brilliant and persuasive opinion by the judge in the case. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is failing to exercise its duty to protect our employees and our government from behavior which a persuasive judicial opinion has called “reprehensible.”

So I praise Bill Walsh for his commendable public service to the City of Cambridge.

I condemn the current Cambridge City Council which continues in office a city manager persuasively demonstrated as “reprehensible” by judge and jury for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro.


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

I regret that my public praise for Bill Walsh’s public service did not make the newspaper.

Vision Walk on the Charles.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I spent three hours Saturday morning walking for a solution to vision loss. I was part of a team from The Blur webseries.

We walked around the block of the Charles River starting from the Publik Theatre on Soldiers Field Road in Brighton. We walked west through increasingly formalized parkland to the Western Avenue / Arsenal Street Bridge, back eastbound between Greenough Boulevard and the Elliot Bridge and back on the Boston side of the river.

This is an area which has seen massive environmental destruction by the state as part of its goal to kill off all animals living on the first ten miles of the Charles River. There was a lot of wild area here. It has been destroyed. The destruction of wildlife habitat and protective vegetation for migrating waterfowl was flat out horrifying.

The state and Cambridge are very compatible bedfellows when it comes to environmental destruction. They are creating a fine college campus out of what used to be a viable, balanced ecosystem.

Harvard shows perhaps half of the northern side of Greenough Boulevard as Harvard housing in its plans.

The only part of the walk in which the state has not attempted outright to destroy all animals is a place just west of the Elliot Bridge which used to be called “Hell’s Half Acre.” This is an area in which there was an enemy the DCR hates more than animals. It was a gay trysting spot. So the DCR destroyed this wild area and put up signs calling the destroyed animal habitat “animal habitat.” This was done during the earliest parts of the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

Urban Ring Update, Advisory Committee Meeting Coming

Archie Mazmanian reports:

1. Report.

I Emailed MassDOT recently inquiring as to the status ("Where's Waldo?") ot its proposed new website for the Urban Ring project and as to the activities of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). I was told that the new website is indeed not in place as yet as it has been more difficult than had been anticipated. Also, the CAC has a meeting scheduled for Monday, November 22, 2010, 4-6 PM at 10 Park Plaza, Conference Rooms 2-3. It is a good thing I inquired because I was not on MassDOT's Email contact list that gave notice that the previously scheduled October 13th CAC meeting had been rescheduled. I wonder if others formerly listed did not receive such notice.

Regarding the old Urban Ring website, which is still standing, I informed MassDOT's Scott Hamway today that Secretary Bowles' June 22, 2010 response to Secretary Mullan's letter of January 22, 2010, should have been posted, as well as the minutes for the last CAC meeting held on July 13, 2010, at which I reminded its Chair that the CAC is subject to both the MA open meeting and public records laws.

Perhaps at the upcoming CAC meeting we may learn of more extensive use of the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) proposed for commuter rail to North Station that will impact the Charles River under the BU Bridge (and thus the Charles River White Geese) as well as the GJRL route through Cambridge.

Stay tuned.

2. Bob response.

I also did not get a notice although I was on the mailing list as well.

William Walsh compared to the current Cambridge City Manager and City Council.

Update, 10/27/10

The letter has been published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1946667471/Guest-commentary-My-dealings-with-former-Cambridge-City-Councilor-Bill-Walsh, under the title "My dealings with former Cambridge City Councillor Bill Walsh."


Bob La Trémouille reports:

Last night, October 20, 2010, former Cambridge City Councilor William Walsh was waked in his long time parish church in West Cambridge. The funeral mass will be this morning.

I have submitted the following as an op ed to the Cambridge Chronicle. There are no guarantees, but it seems that it may get published.

********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

My relationship with William Walsh was punctuated by two speeches.

Our relationship started in Walsh’s successful run for Cambridge City Council, in a campaign debate between him and Councilor David Sullivan concerning Rent Control. I was part of the audience for that debate. It was generally agreed that in my brief comments against Mr. Walsh, I was the only person in the room who “drew blood.”

Then there was the debate in City Council in which my friends concerning Rent Control fought to have Walsh thrown off city council FOR MATTERS WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PERFORMANCE ON CITY COUNCIL and which were on appeal in court. I objected to his expulsion for those reasons, but also because, while we strongly disagreed on Rent Control, Walsh’s performance on City Council was, without exception, commendable from an ethical point of view.

In between I had business dealing with Walsh’s law office in which I saw the contempt for ethics present there, a contempt for ethics which is called by insiders “getting things done.” That attitude made it not at all surprising to me to see people in his office going to jail a few years later. I provided the Boston Globe with information on Walsh’s dealings which expanded the Globe’s investigative report on Walsh from a two part report on a few projects to a three part statewide report concerning a lot of projects. My input was based on an extended records review by me on Walsh’s real estate dealings which stretched from Land Court files in Boston to Bankruptcy Court records in Springfield. That “getting things done” mentality in the banking / financial sector proceeded to destroy our economy in recent years.

In Cambridge politics, however, Walsh’s integrity, in spite of our differences on Rent Control, was beyond reproach, and it was his enemies who were the “getting things done” practitioners. Those enemies certainly do look like they dominate Cambridge politics now, and their approach to government has been notable for zoning initiatives with secret fine print that turned loudly proclaimed “benefits” into the opposite of what was claimed.

One of Walsh’s big victories came in my East Harvard Square Downzoning. He was probably key in the seven member majority (eighth vote in the hospital) which forced Harvard to build the Inn at Harvard in a responsible manner rather than the 72% larger structure built to the sidewalk that Harvard wanted. The “getting things done” people in Cambridge bullied major, uncompensated concessions from the petitioners with the flat out lie, “You have made your deal with the City Council. Now you must negotiate with the Planning Board.”

The “getting things done” mentality in Cambridge City Government now extends to the Cambridge City Council spending millions to defend the Cambridge City Manager against a soundly written decision by a respected judge in which she called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible.” This was because she and a jury of decent human beings found that Cambridge deliberately destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her exercising her rights under civil rights law.

Walsh had his right to take his full appeals on matters which had nothing to do with Cambridge city government.

In the Monteiro case, the City Council is implementing Walsh’s private mentality in the public sphere. Walsh played games with mortgages in a corrupt system in which a wink and a nod were part of the culture. Walsh was never as venal as the finding of the Monteiro judge against the Cambridge City Manager.

The Malvina Monteiro matter shows the reason why state ethics laws which require the expulsion from office without pension for criminal venality in office should be expanded by the judge with city council initiative to the situation where the Cambridge City Manager has been found, in office, to have destroyed the life of a black, Cape Verdian city employee because she exercised her rights under civil rights law.

The Monteiro case is not a matter when the Cambridge City Council is sitting back and watching while a miscreant defends himself for outside behavior. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is spending millions defending the miscreant in spite of a brilliant and persuasive opinion by the judge in the case. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is failing to exercise its duty to protect our employees and our government from behavior which a persuasive judicial opinion has called “reprehensible.”

So I praise Bill Walsh for his commendable public service to the City of Cambridge.

I condemn the current Cambridge City Council which continues in office a city manager persuasively demonstrated as “reprehensible” by judge and jury for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro.

Updates, Monteiro case, Cambridge pols fight for mercury distribution

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Monteiro Update.

A. Supreme Judicial Court - Direct Appellate Review Request..

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on September 29, 2010, denied Cambridge’s request that the SJC hear the Monteiro v. Cambridge case on Direct Appellate Review without consideration before the Appeals Court.

B. Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court on October 5, 2010, allowed Ms. Monteiro’s attorneys an extension to November 16, 2010, to file their brief in response to Cambridge’s appellate brief.

Two days later, Cambridge filed an opposition to the extension. That filing was denied by the SJC the next day.

This extension gives Monteiro an extra 35 days to file. Cambridge was given an extension of 19 days.

2. Cambridge pols fight for mercury distribution.

On September 30, I posted my response to a Cambridge pols’ praise of the splattering of mercury around the world in the name of “environmentalism”. That may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/mercury-supporters-should-switch-sides.html.

In last Thursday’s Cambridge Chronicle, October 7, 2010, the Chronicle printed my letter and a response to the pro-mercury letter by the person whose original op ed led to the Cambridge’s pols ode for mercury. They were at the end of a fairly long number of letters on the editorial / op ed pages. Mine was the next to last letter. The op ed writer’s was the last letter. Both were published on line as well.

Mine may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x83585432/Letter-No-concern-for-environmentalism-in-Cambridge.

The op ed writer’s response may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1423333508/Letter-Mercury-Still-a-danger-no-matter-how-green.

This latter letter is quite well written, and it corrects me on one point. I objected to the supposed environmentalist’s claim that there was so little mercury in each container that it is not worth discussing, on the grounds that millions of these things are being distributed. He states:

“Keep in mind that the United States currently has one billions CFLs in operation and the scheme is to fill our 4.7 billion light sockets with CFLs.” [ed: one typo corrected.]

I accept the correction.

Mercury supporters should switch sides. They should defend the environment.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On September 27, 2010, The Cambridge Chronicle published a letter on line supporting the world wide distribution of mercury containing light bulbs. I presume it is in the September 30, 2010 hard copy. I have not seen the paper yet.

The responses on line have been about 4 to 1 against splattering mercury around the world, particularly as some sort of way to “improve” the environment.

I submitted the following letter on September 28. The responses have been so broadly and intelligently critical of mercury distribution that I would anticipate the editor will have perfectly good letters to choose from. As a result, I anticipate that the editor will not need to print a letter from a person who has been published as much as I have.

So here is my response. The original may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x552736722/Letter-Column-on-CFLs-filled-with-inaccuracies.

***********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I see an “environmentalist” has written a letter supporting the massive distribution of a mercury containing product, a fancy light bulb. She says there is just a little mercury in each bulb. She neglects to mention the millions of bulbs she wants distributed or the amount and harm of the mercury in those millions of bulbs.

It is interesting watching these activists. I have yet to see a single one concerned about massive environmental destruction in their home city of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

There is no concern about plans to destroy the excellent trees of the Alewife reservation for flood storage that belongs under a nearby massive parking lot. There is no concern about the ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond. There is no concern about the plans for destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive.

There is no concern about the ongoing dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach to feed introduced grasses which needs poisons to live. There is no concern about the perfectly healthy grass which survived most of a century without poisons and was destroyed for the sickly stuff. There is no concern that the only thing needed to return this environmentally responsible grass is to stop spending money on poisons and start spending money on responsible grass seed. There is no concern about the major destruction of playing fields to create a drainage system to drain off poisons that should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles.

There is no concern about the introduced wall of bushes walling off the Charles from Magazine Beach by a government which twice a year destroys all other vegetation bordering the Charles, and which has bragged that the introduced vegetation starves the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese. There is no concern that the responsible approach to this introduced wall is to chop it down like the environmentally protective vegetation is regularly chopped down.

There is no concern about the excess environment damage and animal harm in the BU Bridge project or the refusal to remediate because the governments want to destroy all animals living on the first ten miles of the Charles.

But there is loads of support for splattering mercury all over our world in millions of light bulbs which replace perfectly functional light bulbs.

I think these “environmentalists” should change sides.

I think they should start protecting the environment.

Monteiro postings resume at the Appellate Level

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The dockets on the Malvina Monteiro case at the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels have not been available for several days.

They are now available again.

For several days, as I reported, the case was not findable through the appellate site. It is now.

During the period of absense, only two cases were visible on search through the appellate site. Now six, including Monteiro at Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels, are visible. That seems to be about right for the situation as it was before.

I see no difference in the filings.

Reminder of Dormant Urban Ring Project

Archie Reports:

Tuesday's [ed: Sept. 14, 2010] Boston Globe Metro Section (page B1) has an article illustrated with a photo of several of the 60-foot long articulated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses that the T is using on its Route 28 through Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. Apparently some residents of the areas served by Route 28 are not pleased that their inputs were not sought or considered. These BRT buses are the same buses proposed for the now dormant Urban Ring project's Phase 2.

Curiously, area residents did not want designated bus lanes. A major failing of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring was a lack of adequate designated bus lanes to avoid mixed traffic issues on narrow streets. Perhaps if and when Phase 2 of the Urban Ring is revived, the experiences of T Route 28 BRT buses in mixed traffic may prove valuable.

It should be noted that apparently institutional stakeholders are not that involved in the areas served by the T's Route 28, unlike the areas served by the Urban Ring. The T, according to the Globe article, seems to have ignored residents whereas major institutions have dominated the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring project: apparently, residents be damned.

Meantime, the BU Bridge repairs continue. When the work is completed, there will be one less lane (down from four to three) for motor vehicles. What will that do for traffic? Will the Phase 2 Urban Ring project include the BU Bridge as part of its route? Or will the Grand Junction Rail Line under the BU Bridge be augmented to provide two BRT bus lanes AND an active commuter rail line from Worcester through streets of Cambridge to perhaps North Station? Surely the institutions are being consulted; but are the residents?

Meantime, the Charles River White Geese continue to pay the price for inadequate planning.

Op ed on proposed sign ordinance changes compared to environmentalism.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following letter to the editor by me was printed on line by the Cambridge Chronicle on September 13, 2010, under the heading “Cambridge Sign op-ed ‘Refreshingly Well Written’”.

It was printed in the hard copy on September 17, 2010, page 12, the editorial page. It was the middle of only three letters printed, all on the editorial page, same title. An op ed was printed two pages later. Very nice handling.

I note in brackets a typo deleted by the editor. I appreciate the correction.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The oped you printed opposing the proposed sign ordinance amendments was refreshingly well written and thought out.

The arguments I have been seeing more commonly are highly misleading.

Opposing this zoning change has been branded as “defending” the Charles River.

These self-proclaimed defenders of the Charles River certainly look like the same old environmentally destructive group, and they certainly look like they are playing yet another con game.

Loudly calling themselves “environmentalists” for initiatives which distract from their environmental destruction.

The same old group has no problems with destroying hundreds of trees on the Charles River. This group has no problems with poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach. This group has no problems with the ongoing killing off of all resident animals on the first ten miles of the Charles River. This group has no problems with decreasing the size of Magazine Beach to drain off poisons which should not be dumped there in the first place. This group has no problems with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with bizarre introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. This group has no problems with heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese as part of the long series of bizarre projects on the Charles River.

But they sure do[ing] run around praising their supposed defense of the Charles River.

Thank you to the writer for a well written, informative piece.

And thanks to the writer for not making her oped part of the non stop con games in which environmental destroyers try to fool people into looking away from the Charles River and their destruction of the Charles River.

It takes reality to be an environmentalist, not shell games. In Cambridge, altogether too often, we get shell games.

Medeiros Oddity in Appellate Docket

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I anticipate there is some sort of computer problem, but I just did a search of the appellate court docket for “Medeiros” filed in “2010" as I have many times.

I get Edmund and Steven. No Malvina Monteiros came up after repeated tries.

Drug Dealing at Magazine Beach Playground

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following email was sent to a neighborhood listserve on Saturday, September 11.

It is reprinted with permission:

********

I just wanted to let folks know that my school-aged kids saw an apparent drug deal in the playground at Magazine Beach yesterday afternoon. They saw two adults, one waiting for the other. Money was exchanged for a snack-sized baggy containing green material.

I find this very disturbing, especially since it was across the street from Morse School, just around when school was going to be let out, and lots of kids use Magazine Beach. I did call the cops at the time and described the guys to them. Is there anything we can do to increase police presence around our parks and schools? This is not the kind of education I want my kids to have!

Melissa
Chalk Street

Patrick administration brags about environment destruction, neglects to mention the environmental destruction.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation publishes a weekly on line newsletter. It very prominently features a photo of Governor Patrick.

Featured this week is a report on the pedestrian bridge between the north and south sides of Memorial Drive in Cambridge at Magazine Beach.

Earlier this blog published Phil Barber’s photo report on all the trees destroyed for this project.

Somehow, the destruction of trees failed to make the Governor’s report.

The newsletter is at: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/massdotnewsletter/vol49.htm.

This links a more detailed report at: http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2010/09/pedestrian-bridge-project-moves-forward.html.

Nobody mentions the destruction. Odd is it not.

Globe supports Patrick’s environmental destruction?

Archie reports, on September 12:

Today's Globe in its Starts & Stops section (page B2) features the GJRL [ed.: Grand Junction Railroad, the track that runs by the Destroyed Nesting Area and under the BU Bridge.] through Cambridge, ending with the reporter's "humorous" comments as the trip approached the BU Bridge. What might a restored, revitalized GJRL do for (or to) Cambridge?

Ed: The following is the on line link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/09/12/little_used_rail_line_a_key_link_to_worcester.

Monteiro Update, City files its brief in Appeals Court, why this blog follows Monteiro

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. On line dockets.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?


1. On line dockets.

I have been keeping up on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge primarily from on line dockets. These on line dockets list, at minimum, the title of the action which is the subject of the docket entry.

The Superior Court docket is only available to attorneys who have requested access. This docket frequently has posted full text of actions by the judge.

The Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court dockets are available to the public on line.

To give you a feel for the situation, the following are the appellate entries. I have tried to put this data in table form, but have not been successful because of limitations of the blog software.

The docket at the Supreme Judicial Court consists of three entries:

Date Paper # Entry Text

08/05/2010 Docket opened.
08/05/2010 #1 DAR [Ed: Request for Direct Appellate Review] APPLICATION of City of Cambridge filed by Joan A. Lukey, Esquire, Dan Krockmalnic, Esquire, Jacob Scott, Esquire.
08/17/2010 #2 OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application filed for Malvina Monteiro by Ellen J. Zucker, Esquire.

I have previously given my analysis of these papers.

The docket at the Appeals Court consists of the following entries.

Date Paper # Entry Text

7/16/10 #1 Entered.
07/16/2010 Notice of entry sent.
08/05/2010 Copy of DAR application of City of Cambridge.
08/18/2010 #2 Motion for leave to file principal brief in excess of fifty pages filed by City of Cambridge.
08/19/2010 #3 Notice of withdrawal as counsel for City of Cambridge, filed by Jennifer L. Carpenter.
08/19/2010 #4 Notice of appearance of Jacob Scott for City of Cambridge.
08/25/2010 #5 Contingent Motion for leave, if necessary, to re-file principal brief after original filing deadline, filed by City of Cambridge.
08/30/2010 RE#2: Denied. The appellant is to file and serve a brief not exceeding fifty pages on or before September 13, 2010. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
08/30/2010 RE#5: See court's action on paper #2 dated
8/30/10. Due to their size, the record appendix volumes are deemed accepted on 8/30/10 pending filing of the brief. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
09/01/2010 #6 Service of appendix (13 vols) filed by City of Cambridge.
09/10/2010 #7 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant City of Cambridge.

The brief of Ms. Monteiro in response to the city’s brief is due on October 12.

2. Analysis of more recent filings.

The filing of Cambridge on 8/18/10, permission to file longer brief, looked like a holding action intended to delay appeals court action until a response was obtained by the SJC on the request for direct appellate review. The Appeals Court Scotched this tactic on August 30, by denying the motion and ordering brief filing by September 13.

The August 25 motion is hard to fully understand without the papers. It was denied along with the motion for a larger brief.

The appendix, mentioned on August 30 and formally logged on September 1, would be the record from the Superior Court action. This record is the basis for everything occurring in Appeals Court.

Cambridge filed its brief on Friday. If anybody wants to go through the bother of checking the papers and copying it, I would be pleased to have access to the copies. The Cambridge Chronicle, for example, posted one key judge’s order on line when the full order was not made available in the on line docket.

In any case, the Monteiro response brief is due October 12.

3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?

I have posted two links to YouTube videos in which I analyze the “reprehensible” (quoting the judge) situation in the City of Cambridge.

I consider it all one mess.

A. A bad city manager.

B. A bad city council.

C. Massive organizations running around spouting lies to the contrary, lies which are necessary to keep that bad city council from being thrown out of office.

The lies are not usually direct lies. The lies are mostly con games, but pretty much nonstop con games.

Cambridge takes initiatives on the “good” side which are meaningless or next to meaningless when compared to the reprehensible behavior which is so common.

So they run around bragging about supposed good behavior which amounts to trash and suppress the meaningful, rotten behavior. I call that a con game. I call that continuing lies.

The state, on the other hand, has indulged in blatant, key lying.

I think the environmental situation would go a long way toward being resolved if the supposedly pro civil rights city council changed sides to the side they claim to be on.

The city council should accept the decision of judge and jury in Monteiro and fire the city manager without pension and without golden parachute to the extent the superior court judge will bless such action.

That would go some distance to reversing the environmental destruction on the Charles since the city manager’s people have their hands in who know how much, but it looks like pretty much everything.

Cleansing the city of the current city manager would give the city government a chance to resemble the lovely and very false claims of the Cambridge City Council in the environmental front.

The state’s behavior is so closely coordinated with Cambridge that it is silly to think that firing the City Manager would be other than a possible reversal of the destructiveness of the state.

Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have posted another segment from our 8/15/10 show of the Cambridge Environment on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6HY-ndOjo. The following summary is provided on YouTube.

The reality of the true rottenness of Cambridge’s manager and city council is reemphasized day by day by day as it becomes clearer to all that the expenditures at Magazine Beach are a truly bizarre waste of money, and are destructive in addition to the totally unnecessary and very heartless animal abuse.

*********

Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river
© 2010, Friends of the White Geese

Out takes from the 8/15/10 show, The Cambridge Environment.
Commentator and Preparer of these notes: Robert J. La Trémouille

Segments:

1. Rape, murder and the killing of nesting mother geese. The Cambridge City Council had voted to starve and destroy the habitat of the Charles River White Geese in the truly bizarre project that just finished. So they were “neutral” when a follower started killing nesting mother geese. Then, when he graduated to rape and murder, the City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder and did not want to know where it occurred.

2. Library park: 23 hundred year old trees “replaced” with 57 saplings, most of which were then destroyed for the obvious phase 2 of the project. The first phase would have been environmentally responsible if placed where the second phase was placed.

3. Straight out lying from the state, and con games from the Cambridge City Council. How the lies work, whether out right or con games.


On the graduation from killing mother geese (with a wink and a nod from the Cambridge City Council) to rape and murder.

First of all, please see my separate posting on the judge/jury decision in Monteiro v. Cambridge “City Manager can be fired.” The description includes key citations. [Ed: link at the top right of this blog.]

A comparison between the two graduations:

The killer of nesting mother geese
● graduated to rape and murder
● in possible response to the tacit encouragement of the Cambridge City Council.
● The City Council admitted its complicity by speaking out on the rape and murder for an hour and not wanting to know where it happened, emphasized by Davis’ behavior when she accidentally said where it happened.

We have a very clear graduation of the Cambridge City Manager

● from heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese
● to, according to judge and jury, the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.
● With very clear support of the heartless animal abuse by the Cambridge City Council.
● And the Cambridge City Council still doesn’t want to know what they are doing.
● But they sure do keep on bragging that they are pro-environment and pro-civil rights. And playing con games to fool well meaning people.

YouTube: The Cambridge City Manager Should be Fired

Bob La Trémouille reports.

I have posted on YouTube my slightly over five minute analysis of how and why the Cambridge City Manager should be fired for his treatment of Malvina Monteiro. This firing could go a long way toward reversing the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse on the Charles River.

Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

Monteiro update — Action in Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court, Direct Appeal Requested.

1. General.
2. Appeals Court.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.


Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. General.

I have kept people up to date on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The best details can be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

Succinctly, the City of Cambridge is now facing a judgment slightly in excess of $6 million because judge and jury have found that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The judge’s key opinion is very notable for its use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.

On July 16, Cambridge filed appeal in the Appeals Court. That created a time limit of August 25, 2010 for Cambridge to file its appellate brief explaining why it is appealing.

The case number in Appeals Court is 2010-P-1240.

There has been action in Appeals Court and in the Supreme Judicial Court.

2. Appeals Court.

On August 18, 2010, Cambridge filed a motion that it be allowed to file a principal brief in excess of 50 pages.

That should stay the August 25, 2010 due date for their brief.

3. Supreme Judicial Court.

On August 5, 2010, Cambridge filed an application for Direct Appellate Review with the Supreme Judicial Court.

On August 16, 2010, Ms. Monteiro filed an “OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application.”

I do not have access to more than the names of the papers.

The case number is DAR-19067.

A filing of this sort by the appealing party (Cambridge) normally would be based on a contention that the case is going to wind up in the SJC anyway, so why waste time at the Appeals Court.

It is interesting that Ms. Monteiro filed a “limited” opposition. My guess as to what that means comes from whole cloth.

If Monteiro’s lawyers think that the case is going to wind up in the SJC no matter, that language would mean that Ms. Monteiro, in order to get her position into the court, has to file a paper called an “opposition,” and that the “limited” nature of the “opposition” probably comes from a situation in which Ms. Monteiro really agrees with Direct Appellate Review, and the paper is filed because there is something that Ms. Monteiro wants to put on record.

Clearly, if the case WILL wind up in front of the SJC, it is to both parties’ benefit to skip the Appeals Court.

However, I am not at all certain that it would be responsible for the City to file yet another appeal. I have real questions as to whether the Appeals Court appeal has value. Under this analysis, it could be the position of Ms. Monteiro that the City of Cambridge is going to chase a silly appeal to the SJC.

We will see. We will see.

Charles River environmental money used for a school garden?

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.
3. My response.


1. Introduction.

The last things one should expect from somebody involved in the Cambridge Machine are environmental comments which resemble common seanse or reality.

It gets worse in Cambridge because the Boston Sierra Club has a number of people very visible in it who sure do look like very visible parts of the Cambridge Machine. Many of these individuals have been very active in zoning petitions which did destruction of zoning protections for the environment while loudly proclaiming exactly the opposite.

It thus comes as no surprise that the Boston Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmentally destructive members of the Cambridge City Council and that non-incumbents endorsed certainly look like they fit the environmentally destructive incumbents.

An email concerning the Charles River has been distributed over the name of a person endorsed by the Sierra Club in the last election. The endorsement made her suspect from my point of view and her subsequent aura confirmed my suspicions.

I have start checking the reality on this nonsense, but the fact of these communications are instructive as to reality in the City of Cambridge.

Please just study what she has put on the record and what I have attempted to put on the record in an attempt to respond.

Looking at the source, I would say it is probably true that the candidate sent out this document.

2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.

Remember the 2,500 gallon diesel spill in February of this year in the Charles River ? It occurred at MWRA’s Cottage Farm Facility ( 660 Memorial Drive ) in Cambridge . In June, MWRA was fined $30,187 by the Mass DEP for failing to follow procedure, failing to notify the DEP in a timely way and discharging a pollutant into water body without a permit.

The fine has been converted to a SEP (Supplemental Environmental Project) involving funding a rain garden at the Morse School to mitigate stormwater runoff from the school parking lot. I’d be curious to know if anyone hears more about this rain garden planning and construction. Thanks.

Minka vanBeuzekom

3. My response.

Use of that money would make a lot more sense neutralizing Cambridge and the DCR's deliberate environmental destruction on the Charles. The MWRA was victimized by an irresponsible delivery company. Cambridge and the DCR are deliberately destroying.

Replace the poisons being dumped to keep sickly introduced grass alive with seeds for the grass that was there for most of a century.

Chop down the bizarre introduced vegetation walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles and starving the 30 year native Charles River White Geese.

Undo the massive destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.

Fill in the drainage ditches to carry away poisons that should not be dumped next to the Charles in the first place to get Magazine Beach's playing fields back to the size they were until Cambridge and the state destroyed the fields and the environment.

Allow the 30 year native Charles River White Geese to return to their home at Magazine Beach.

To Tom’s of Maine on an Environmental Destroyer

Marilyn has forwarded the following concerning her contact with Tom’s of Maine about their considering providing environmental moneys to the environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy:

**********

Sent just now, at their Contact Us:

Your company has established an image of itself as independent of the giant consumer products corporations and environmentally aware.

Unfortunately, by associating the company with the Charles River Conservancy's ongoing wholesale destruction of Amorpha frutescens (a native plant that has been cultivated to control erosion since 1724); iris pseudacorus (it reduces bacterial loads and absorbs heavy metals; the Charles River remains contaminated with chemicals from long-gone tanneries); solidago spp. (much beloved goldenrods); and other plants that provide habitat for resident and migrating birds, you cast that reputation in doubt.

The CRC is a tool of institutions that seek to turn public parkland on the Charles into their own office parks and campuses.

Please do not be misled by the glossy self-presentation of the Charles River Conservancy.

The future of Memorial Drive and the Charles River?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

These photos are of the street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on Memorial Drive near the eastern end of the desolation which has been inflicted on the Charles River animal habitat. About a block to the west is the ghetto into which the Charles River White Geese have been forced, which now has been three quarters destroyed with no remediation offered or accomplished.














If you look very closely at the left side of the photos, you will see tiny saplings.

If you will look at the right, you will see what looks like trees. The “large trees” are on the grounds of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Privately owned trees are much less subject to irresponsible destruction in Cambridge and on the Charles River than are publicly owned trees. The street, Vassar Street, ends at the Charles River.














Only a few months ago, the apparently large trees on the right were dwarfed by about twelve magnificent trees on the left. They towered over the buildings to the left. They extended over the street blocking the sun. They were magnificent.

Various nonsensical excuses were given for the destruction. The pieces of nonsense can be summarized by saying that the magnificent 12 trees were in the wrong location. The liars proved themselves liars by planting saplings in the place of the excellent trees they destroyed because the trees were in the wrong location.

The real reason? Cambridge’s “planners” were planting saplings up the length of this street, Vassar Street. They were obviously offended that the magnificent trees would tower over their saplings. So they destroyed the magnificent trees, with the usual fake review.

Cambridge and state “planners” have their minds squarely in the 19th century while fronting themselves with fake environmental groups.

This is the “plan” for hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach, with the same sick destructiveness.

The environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy praises the forthcoming destruction.

The environmentally vile CRC has been the most important front entity for the state in the destruction on the Charles. The environmentally vile CRC praises the environmental planners of the 19th Century.

Before the destruction next to the BU Bridge, all ground vegetation was destroyed, between Memorial Drive and the Charles River from the BU Boathouse near the foot of Vassar Street to the BU Bridge, except for vegetation in and near the construction zone.

The quality of the ground vegetation destroyed by these people can be appreciated by looking at the area on Google Maps, satellite view. There still is EXCELLENT vegetation undestroyed next to the construction, 50% too large, in the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese. Most of the ghetto and all the area from there to the BU Boathouse has been denuded of ground vegetation.

The CRC brags of what it calls “vegetation management.”

The CRC is seeking money from Tom’s of Maine for “vegetation management.”

The sick destruction of these trees falls into their euphemism of “vegetation management.”

The sick destruction of all ground vegetation near the Charles between BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge falls into their definition of “vegetation management.”

What sort of destruction will the CRC fund with the money from Tom’s of Maine?

Environmental Destroyer seeks money from Tom’s of Maine

Bob reports:

1. General.
2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.
3. Leaflets.
4. Add on.


1. General.

The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy is seeking money from Tom's of Maine under the lie, it would appear, that they are pro-environment.

Please defend the animals, the trees and the water of the Charles from this group. Please tell Tom's not to assist their destructive cause. Tom's may be contacted at https://tomsofmaine.custhelp.com/app/ask/session/L3NpZC9jYkI5eTUyaw%3D%3D

2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.

I have posted the following comment on Tom’s email card:

*******

Enclosed are two documents concerning the environmental nightmare on the Charles River and in Cambridge, MA.

The Charles River Conservancy is uniformly on the wrong side.

Cambridge and Massachusetts are destroying all resident animals on the first 10 miles of the Charles River because they are offended by the presence of water related animals near a river.

The CRC runs around poisoning the eggs of Canada Geese every year.

The CRC twice a year destroys all protective vegetation on both side of the Charles River.

The State has been punished by the City of Boston for the environmental destructiveness of their agent, the Charles River Conservancy.

If you want to do something positive on the Charles River, I would request that you fund the people defending the river against these destructive people, Friends of the White Geese, address on the fliers.

Please also note our blog, website and facebook page, all on the fliers.

3. Leaflets.

Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com. I would be pleased to provide you the files (opposite sides of leaflet) I provided to Tom’s of Maine.

The situation on the Charles River and in Cambridge is bad enough without the destroyers fooling more good people to fund their cause.

4. Add on.

I realized that the above posting was not completely correct. So I added the following:

*********

I just made a posting which states that the Charles River Conservancy destroys all protective vegetation on the lower Charles River twice a year.

That is not completely true. They destroy all protective native vegetation.

The state with CRC’s support has introduced a bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles River at the Magazine Beach playing fields. This replaces an animal habitat in existence for the better part of a century and starves the Charles River White Geese from keeping them from their primary source of food for most of the last 30 years: the grass on the playing fields.

This bizarre stuff is allowed to grow without limit which the CRC destroys the valuable native vegetation everywhere else.

The grass, 7 acres which survived the better part of a century, has been dug up and replaced with sickly stuff that requires poisons to survive.

They have introduced a massive drainage system supposedly to keep these poisons out of the Charles River, poisons that would not be necessary if they returned to the healthy grass which has been native to this area for the better part of the last century.

The CRC, of course, is on the destructive side.

It gets worse.

Cambridge announces Monteiro appeal, gets value wrong

Bob La Trémouille reports:

It is always difficult to figure out what comes out of the City of Cambridge, but here goes.

Yesterday, July 29, there were two media reports of the appeal in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. Both got the value wrong. One reported that they had tried to contact the Plaintiff’s attorney without success. So the report with its error must have come from Cambridge. Since Cambridge is the appealing party, it is possible the appellate papers have the same error.

Final judgment entered May 25.

My calculation of the numbers came in the low to middle $6 million. The Cambridge Chronicle, at that time, quoted the Plaintiff’s attorney at $6.9 million.

Appeal was filed on July 16. I reported the appeal on this blog on July 21.

Yesterday, Lawyers USA and the Chronicle reported the appeal, quoting the value at $4.5 million, a modest understatement of the value before the post judgment motions. Coming from the Chronicle, that lower number is quite telling, since two months ago, they were saying $6.9 million.

My reading, because of the error and the Chronicle’s statement that they could not contact the Plaintiff’s attorney, is that the information was put out by Cambridge. Very interesting that Cambridge would understate the value by $2 million. But that is the City of Cambridge for you.

Cambridge Council Playing Environment Games, Again

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have submitted the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. It was published on line on July 28, 2010.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I am pleased to see that, for the time being, Cambridge will not destroy four excellent street trees near Hoyt Field. This would have followed on the destruction of 12 even better street trees behind the Hyatt Regency and on major destruction of trees around the Magazine Beach footbridge.

One or more city councilors will tell us about an “effort” to “improve” regulation of street tree destruction. Playing with these regulations commenced one week after the city council voted to allow destruction of 17,000 square feet of densely grown trees for highway construction. The council voted to exempt themselves from public hearing on this destruction.

Environmental destruction by the City Council and the City is far more massive than their irresponsible destruction of street trees. Thus street tree regulations were silly when passed and “improving” them does not make the regulations less silly.

There is the coming destruction of the main part of the Alewife reservation by Cambridge and its friends. There is the ongoing destruction of perhaps thousand of trees at Fresh Pond by Cambridge. There is the planned destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive by the state working closely with Cambridge.

There is the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly grass introduced after the destruction of healthy green grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons. There is the decrease in size of those playing fields for a drainage system to drain off poisons which should not even be there. There is the wall of introduced bushes walling off the Charles River from Magazine Beach. There is the nonstop, heartless abuse of the beautiful, 30 year native Charles River White Geese.

Cambridge public works projects are routinely destructive.

The City Council and its friends do not want people to know of their ongoing destruction of our world. They want to talk about what they do not destroy.

The Monteiro civil rights judge accurately called Cambridge “reprehensible.” She gave the City Council a strong argument for firing the city manager without pension and without golden parachute, with permission of court. Her initiative would go some way to save our environment as well.

Regrettably, the environmental and city manager problems rest on a city council which wants to brag about what it has not destroyed rather than stopping the destruction of which it is such a clear part.

Appeal filed in Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The case of MALVINA MONTEIRO & others vs. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE has been entered as an appeal in the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The case number is 2010-P-1240.

It was entered on July 16, 2010.

The appealing party is the City of Cambridge.

Brief (legal argument) is due from the City of Cambridge on August 25, 2010.

TAKE 2: MARK TWAIN + URBAN RING PHASE 2

Archie Mazmanian reports on the latest developments of the Urban Ring Phase 2:

My prodding of MEPA to respond to Commissioner Mullan’s letter of January 22, 2010, resulted (email response 5/13/10) in being informed that the response, following its preparation, would be posted at MEPA’s website:

http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/eeanews.aspx

I checked this website from time to time, finding it quite difficult to navigate. Finally, after learning from the Urban Ring website of the CAC’s July 13th meeting, I went upstream, downstream, and finally located MEPA’s June 22nd response to Commissioner Mullan in advance of the CAC meeting. Unfortunately, I was unable to retrace my journey so as to provide a link. The Urban Ring website did not post or provide a link to MEPA’s response.

One of the handouts at the July 13th CAC meeting was a “spreadsheet” 5 pages in length headed “MassDOT Urban Ring Planning Progress Report (July 8, 2010).” One of the items is “Urban Ring website transfer” which is in progress to a new website hosted by MassDOT: www.mass.gov/massdot/urbanring expected to be launched sometime this Summer. A recent check indicates it is not in place as yet.

In the meantime, if someone is able to pinpoint MEPA’s June 22nd response at its website, it would be appreciated if the URL could be provided to this Blog for purposes of a link. The response is quite interesting and calls for careful scrutiny. For example, the response includes the following:

“Moreover, I concur with MassDOT’s assessment that continuing the review of this project which, according to the long-range Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, is not slated for construction within the next twenty years makes meaningful environmental impact review difficult to achieve.”
http://www.blogger.com/
And what does this mean for the public’s mass transit needs in the Greater Boston area today? In twenty years, if I make it, I’ll be celebrating my 100th birthday. In the meantime, I’ll be marking time; alas, no one will be able to “Mark Twain” at the Charles River crossing proposed for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring as the Commonwealth and Cambridge continue their Charles River White Geese “killing fields” projects.

Stayed tuned for follow up.

Archie Mazmanian

Magazine Beach poison drainage, trees near Phil Barber photos.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The Charles River White Geese have been cherished natives of the Charles River for nearly 30 years.

For most of that time, they lived a migratory life in a one mile habitat centered on the BU Bridge. Most of their days, they fed at Magazine Beach. Part of the year, and in the worst storms, they lived at their nesting area which is the only part of the habitat not yet destroyed to them, just 3/4 destroyed with no remediation.

The Cambridge voted to destroy the playing fields and animal habitat at the seven acre Magazine Beach. This has been implemented along with the outrages at the nesting area under the watch of Governor Patrick.

When the plans were first proposed by the Cambridge City Manager, the response of the public was very uniform. This hillside to the west of the playing fields could use some work. The playing fields themselves were very clearly in no need for “improvement.”

As part of their implementation of the Cambridge City Manager plans, the state created a master plan for the Charles River which showed Magazine Beach as a lawn to the Charles River.

The state introduced massive bushes blocking off the Charles River from Magazine Beach and starving the Charles River White Geese by blocking off their food.

Starting in 2000 and repeatedly since then, the state has repeatedly proclaimed “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese. They have since explained that starving them is not harming them in their world.

When the Cambridge City Council voted funds to assist in the environmental destruction, the explanation was that they were “improving” open space. How does blocking off the Charles River and starving the residents “improve” open space? The Cambridge City Council and their undisclosed representatives do not want to discuss that.

Cambridge and Patrick destroyed seven acres worth of grass at Magazine Beach which had survived the better part of a century green, without poisons.

Cambridge and Patrick replaced the green native vegetation with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. To keep the poisons that should not even be there out of the Charles River, Cambridge and Patrick have introduced large drainage ditches a few feet from the Charles to drain off the poisons that need not be there.

This drainage system replaces food for the Charles River White Geese, if they could get beyond the barrier.

This drainage system replaces playing fields that are the supposed excuse of Cambridge and Patrick for this outrage.

So they have replaced perfectly good playing fields and animal food with poisoned grass, smaller playing fields, and a drainage system to drain off poisons that should not even be dumped on the banks of the Charles River.

Here are photos of the drainage system taken in the last few weeks.

The major trees shown in the rear are trees which have not been destroyed, although significant recent destruction has occurred here, in the Destroyed Nesting Area and a massive destruction of excellent trees behind the Hyatt Regency just east of the Destroyed Nesting. Cambridge brags of being a tree city. Cambridge brags of saplings planted. Cambridge keeps secret healthy trees and healthy environment needlessly destroyed. Yet another lie from a very destructive government.

The photos provided by Phil Barber and recently printed are of major destruction very close to the trees in the background, if not some of these trees. Phil’s photos may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/bob-la-tremouille-reports-phil-barber.html.

MARK TWAIN + URBAN RING PHASE 2

Archie Mazmanian reports, Bob La Trémouille ed.:

Mark Twain has been in the news recently with reports that Volume 1 of his autobiography will be published this November, 100 years following his demise pursuant to his directions. This brings to mind the premature publication of Twain’s obituary that triggered his cable from London stating: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

I attended the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on the Urban Ring on July 13, 2010, its first public meeting since January 11, 2010, that I reported on at this Blog. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010_01_13_archive.html. The January 11th meeting was followed with MassDOT Commissioner Mullan’s two letters of January 15th and 22nd to MEPA in effect suspending many aspects of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring from MEPA review.

Finally on June 22nd, MEPA responded to Mr. Mullan. Prior thereto, with several Emails, I had prodded MEPA about responding to MassDOT. MEPA’s response [ed: Archie will provide the link with installment 2 of the report.] is quite detailed, pointing out concurrence with Mr. Mullan’s proposals in his letter but also reminding him that MEPA compliance may be determined to be required from time to time for various aspects of actions proposed to be taken on certain segments of Phase 2. After several readings of MEPA’s response, I can understand why it took five (5) months.

Attendance of CAC members seemed quite sparse at its July 13th meeting and a quorum may have been lacking. However, there were many MassDOT department personnel present, including a new spokesperson from MassDot for the Urban Ring.

I do not plan with this submission to summarize the meeting but wish to point out how disjointed it was. There were suggestions that perhaps subcommittees or select members of the CAC had been meeting with MassDOT and the compact communities following the January 11th meeting. During the public comment period, I mentioned the need for the CAC to be in compliance with both the Open Meeting and Public Records Laws of the Commonwealth as down the road the public may be addressing such compliance. Tom Nally, CAC Chair, said he would look into whether such Laws apply to the CAC.

The elephants in the room remain: (1) the Charles River crossing and (2) the Longwood/Fenway area. Since the January 11th CAC meeting, MassDOT has completed certain CSX acquisitions. Newspaper reports spoke of the Framingham commuter rail tracking to North Station, presumably via the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) under the BU Bridge. My public comments made reference to this, pointing out possible physical conflicts with two lanes for 60-foot long BRT Buses somehow maneuvering from a reconstructed trestle to then go over the rails on the Boston side from the west to the east side of the BU Bridge by means of a short tunnel to surface at Boston University’s Academy site along University Road to cross Commonwealth Avenue to the Carlton Street Bridge in Brookline (and on to the Longwood/Fenway area). At present, the trestle provides only a single set of tracks; it would seem that a double set of tracks would be required for what could be a busy commuter rail line to justify MassDOT’s investment.

The Phase 2 route from the Charles River crossing to and through the Longwood/Fenway area continues on hold. Meantime, traffic and transportation issues in that area continue to pile up and will worsen once construction starts on Parcel 7, Kenmore Square, air rights over the MA Turnpike Extension, a humongous development. And of course the BU Bridge construction will be with us for at least another year.

I shall submit further reports on the recent CAC meeting. (Its next public meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 13th.)

Like Mark Twain, the CAC may be saying: “Reports of the death of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring are greatly exaggerated.” But how effective may be the CAC’s CPR?

Archie Mazmanian

Photos of Tree Destruction

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Phil Barber has sent me two emails and photo attachments. The following are the emails. Below are the photos.

Phil Barber Reports:

Report 1, 6/30/10, 7:54 pm

Hi Bob, I hope this finds you well.

I was dismayed to see this evening that the arboricides have struck again. You’ve probably seen this already (I haven’t been down to the river much of late) but they’ve cut down a number of mature oaks, maples, and others near the footbridge over Mem Drive at Magazine Beach on both sides. Another upsetting and unnecessary loss!

Take care,
Phil

Report 2, 7/1/10, 10:01 am

Hi Bob, here's some shots I took yesterday of the denuded wide-open spaces, etc. These best show what was taken, I'd say at least half a dozen big trees and some smaller ones

Phil

Worcester vote on Department of Transportation plan for Worcester, Beacon Yards, Grand Junction bridge and line

The Worcester City Council has voted in favor of the Department of Transportation's plan to expand the freight yards there, so as to increase commuter rail use of the Beacon Yards while drastically reducing freight in the latter.

The plan will have major consequences for Worcester neighborhoods as well as metro Boston. In Allston and Cambridge it will not seem to reduce rail traffic in the Beacon Yards, since DOT wants to use that facility as a car barn for commuter rail as well as increase through traffic on the Worcester-Framingham line to both North and South Stations.

Eliminating rail freight almost entirely, as it aims to do, will in fact greatly increase truck traffic throughout metro I-495, with attendant problems for the environment, roadway maintenance costs, and public health. There are other consequences, some of which are outlined in the letter Marilyn Wellons sent to the Worcester Telegram on Monday, June 28, 2010:

To the Editor:

On the eve of the city's vote on plans to move the Beacon Freight Yards to Worcester, please consider the following:

1. Recently announced plans to send Worcester-Framingham commuter trains to North Station would free up space in South Station for the new South Coast service that will compete for it. Will some or eventually all Worcester-Framingham trains end up at North Station? Will commuters learn to accept this change?

2. The same plans would send some or all Worcester-Framingham trains over the Grand Junction rail bridge. This structure has been the Urban Ring Phase 2 (UR2) critical Charles River crossing. Although UR2 is now on hold, will the new commuter rail plans scotch UR2's for the same bridge?

3. Crossings in Framingham and in Cambridge are to be at grade, with all attendant problems.

4. Your recent article on the virtues of the CSX facility in Atlanta make an excellent case for keeping the Beacon Yards in Allston rather than moving them west, to Worcester, with the increased truck traffic there and within I-495.

With so many last-minute uncertainties and so much at stake, Worcester should think again about these plans, rather than merely cross fingers and wish to make the supposed benefits so.

***********

For the Worcester Telegram's coverage of last night's vote on DOT's plans, see: http://www.telegram.com/article/20100630/NEWS/6300450/1116.

Marilyn Wellons