1. Background.
2. The current attack on the Charles River.
3. The Grand Junction.
1. Background.
The current Cambridge City Manager has been in office since 1974, first assisting James Leo Sullivan, then on his own.
One of the first things James Leo did was to create supposed “neighborhood associations.” The first one he created called itself the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association. It very quickly was instrumental in the needless destruction of the best park in the neighborhood along with about 23 hundred year old trees.
During my decades of activism defending the environment in Cambridge, I have used zoning changes as a very effective tool for environmental protection. I have written more successful zoning changes in Cambridge than any other person not employed by the Cambridge city government, and in sharp contrast to too many examples, my petitions do what I say they do.
The most spectacular of these petitions was a series of three petitions sponsored by three different groups. The combination changed the zoning between Cambridge’s major squares, Harvard and Central Squares, to make construction much more environmentally responsible by requiring open space around buildings and requiring housing so that people can commute a shorter distance to work. Building size allowed was quite large by any neutral standard.
My zoning changes affected 85% of the area between these two major squares on Massachusetts Avenue, the main street of Cambridge. The changes significantly improved in particular, Green Street, just to the south of Massachusetts Avenue. Green Street, when I started, was overwhelming residential but more than half of the Mass. Ave. side zone the same as Massachusetts Avenue, plus it had an other block on the far side almost as bad. Green Street has been changed to totally residential and most of the changes are to zoning the same as adjacent residential streets.
My big victory is the Inn at Harvard in eastern Harvard Square. Harvard wanted that building built to the lot line and 72% larger. My vote was 7 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 in the hospital.
The biggest problem in this area as with so much of the city are the fake groups associated with the Cambridge City Manager. I repeatedly beat the people who controlled the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association to achieve a lot, but the dirty tricks of the key people had very major destructive impact.
2. The current attack on the Charles River.
I started working to defend the Charles River when a fake group, the predecessor of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy, started organizing to destroy the environment in the BU Bridge area. They flaunted an outrageously silly and irresponsible proposal of the Cambridge City Manager. The usual response of civilians was “they would never stoop so low”, listening to the constant lies coming out of Cambridge about environmental sainthood.
"They" have stooped so low and are getting worse.
During the middle of my high profile defense of the Charles River another group was created in association with the Cambridge City Manager.
This one calls itself the "Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association."
It formed itself to organize around the redevelopment of properties formerly owned by the Roman Catholic Church. The group loudly called the proposals too large. As is very common with these groups, they succeeded in making the project larger.
This group brags that it prohibits negative discussion. Prohibiting negative discussion means that all which is allowed is cheerleading. It is downright impossible to beat off an attack when you are prohibited to talk negatively.
The group, with this bizarre code, assisted in the destruction of zoning protections around a hotel across from Magazine Beach. Zoning protections were destroyed under the lie that their zoning change did the exact opposite of what was reality. This zoning change was compatible with a whole bunch of fake downzonings associated with friends of the Cambridge City Manager / the Cambridge Pols.
Most recently, this “neighborhood association” conducted a “public meeting” on plans of the bureaucrats for the Magazine Beach area. The reality in Magazine Beach is massive environmental destruction, reduction of playing field, and blocking off of playing fields on the banks of the Charles River from the Charles River, all totally unnecessary, combined with heartless animal abuse as part of the totally unnecessary environmental destruction.
The censorship of the meeting, as is normal, allowed full communication by a very destructive agency which did significant lying to achieve the destruction achieved so far, but mention of their record was prohibited because this fake neighborhood association prohibits negative discussion.
Then the fake neighborhood association joined in a “Celebration” of the needless environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. The “Celebration” naturally did not mention the destruction.
3. The Grand Junction.
People are concerned about totally unnecessary, silly and destructive passenger traffic on the Grand Junction.
The fake neighborhood association is now showing its value to the City Manager and City Councilors.
The term is “company union.” If you cannot persuade people to help you destroy, at least you can kill organization.
The argument is that Cambridgeport has a “neighborhood association.” Creating a meaningful group would be “divisive.”
I downzoned 85% of Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares by keeping the Cambridge pols as far away as possible. They did significant harm to two of the three initiatives.
I steadily kept them further and further away from the groups. The further I kept them away, the greater the successes. I repeatedly beat them in their own controlled groups, but I should not have had to.
The property owners were not the problem. The problem was my fake friends.
Unity with the City Manager’s friends is folly.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Update on Monteiro Case
1. Latest Change.
2. Background.
3. General Background.
1. Latest Change.
The final pretrial conference on the two remaining plaintiffs in Malvina Montero v. City of Cambridge in Superior Court has been set by Order of Court, Dennis J. Curran, J., for August 11, 2011, at 2 pm in Session F at the Superior Courthouse in Woburn, MA.
This is a change of one day from the most recent date which was, apparently, set by the Clerk of Court. Order is dated July 20, 2011.
2. Background.
The key judicial paper in this matter, by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J., may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
This civil rights case originally had five plaintiffs. Two have settled, I understand, for good sums of money. The order concerns the trial of the final two plaintiffs.
The case is in Appeals Court with regard to Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro. A hearing has been conducted before a panel of three Appeals Court judges in the ordinary course on May 4, 2011. The case in Appeals Court is awaiting decision by the panel.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of Cambridge’s Police Review Board. She and the other plaintiffs filed complaint alleging disparate treatment by Cambridge on the basis of sex.
Her basic complaint lost in trial by one jury. A second jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had retaliated against Monteiro, that he had, among other things, fired her in retaliation for her filing the civil rights complaint.
The jury awarded approximately $1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.
The judge supported the jury’s award in the very well written opinion which I have cited above. She, among other things, certainly gave the impression she was proving the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for his actions in this matter.
The last time I calculated the accumulated award, in May 2010, it exceed $6 million and was climbing.
The Cambridge City Council is funding its legal defense of this case in the amount of millions. The vote to fund the appeal, in spite of the excellent opinion, did not include getting an opinion from an independent qualified attorney as to whether there were grounds for appeal or if the city should pay Monteiro and fire the City Manager.
My estimation is that, if the finding of Judge and Jury is correct, the Cambridge City Manager could be fired without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.
3. General Background.
As in environmental matters, the Cambridge City Council runs around calling themselves saints on civil rights matters as well.
Their claim is a very clear lie on environmental matters.
With regard to civil rights matters, the Cambridge City Council very clearly does not want to know what it is doing on the Monteiro case, That belies their claims of sainthood on civil rights as well.
2. Background.
3. General Background.
1. Latest Change.
The final pretrial conference on the two remaining plaintiffs in Malvina Montero v. City of Cambridge in Superior Court has been set by Order of Court, Dennis J. Curran, J., for August 11, 2011, at 2 pm in Session F at the Superior Courthouse in Woburn, MA.
This is a change of one day from the most recent date which was, apparently, set by the Clerk of Court. Order is dated July 20, 2011.
2. Background.
The key judicial paper in this matter, by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J., may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
This civil rights case originally had five plaintiffs. Two have settled, I understand, for good sums of money. The order concerns the trial of the final two plaintiffs.
The case is in Appeals Court with regard to Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro. A hearing has been conducted before a panel of three Appeals Court judges in the ordinary course on May 4, 2011. The case in Appeals Court is awaiting decision by the panel.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of Cambridge’s Police Review Board. She and the other plaintiffs filed complaint alleging disparate treatment by Cambridge on the basis of sex.
Her basic complaint lost in trial by one jury. A second jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had retaliated against Monteiro, that he had, among other things, fired her in retaliation for her filing the civil rights complaint.
The jury awarded approximately $1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.
The judge supported the jury’s award in the very well written opinion which I have cited above. She, among other things, certainly gave the impression she was proving the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for his actions in this matter.
The last time I calculated the accumulated award, in May 2010, it exceed $6 million and was climbing.
The Cambridge City Council is funding its legal defense of this case in the amount of millions. The vote to fund the appeal, in spite of the excellent opinion, did not include getting an opinion from an independent qualified attorney as to whether there were grounds for appeal or if the city should pay Monteiro and fire the City Manager.
My estimation is that, if the finding of Judge and Jury is correct, the Cambridge City Manager could be fired without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.
3. General Background.
As in environmental matters, the Cambridge City Council runs around calling themselves saints on civil rights matters as well.
Their claim is a very clear lie on environmental matters.
With regard to civil rights matters, the Cambridge City Council very clearly does not want to know what it is doing on the Monteiro case, That belies their claims of sainthood on civil rights as well.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Toomey on the Grand Junction
1. Boston Globe letter.
2. Editor's Analysis.
1. Boston Globe letter.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
Yesterday's (7/22/11) Boston Globe includes a letter from Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., State Representative from a Cambridge district, responding negatively to the Globe's earlier editorial (July 11th) on the Grand Junction railroad line, raising environmental and financial issues, available at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/07/22/environmental_impact_overlooked_in_approving_glance_at_rail_plan/ (Mr. Toomey is also described as "a Cambridge city councilor.) Mr. Toomey points out the small number of Worcester commuters (8%) that would benefit from destinations near North Station; that such commuters currently have alternate access via the Orange Line at Back Bay Station.
Disrupting street traffic in Cambridge during commuter hours for such a small group makes no environmental or financial sense.
2. Editor's Analysis.
Thank you Archie.
I am very much uncertain as to where Mr. Toomey is really coming from.
Other members of the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Pols running around "objecting" give me the very strong opinion that the real people fighting for this proposal are in Cambridge loudly yelling against it. When these types yell so loud, it has a strong tendency to look like their usual con game to get responsible members of the Cambridge community to support a "compromise" which in reality is the only game in town.
The one thing which is clear is that it is highly destructive to the Charles River on the Cambridge side and to the animals living there. As such, the con games fit in with the Cambridge Pols’ pretty much non stop attacks on the Charles River, loudly yelling the opposite of where they really stand.
2. Editor's Analysis.
1. Boston Globe letter.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
Yesterday's (7/22/11) Boston Globe includes a letter from Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., State Representative from a Cambridge district, responding negatively to the Globe's earlier editorial (July 11th) on the Grand Junction railroad line, raising environmental and financial issues, available at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/07/22/environmental_impact_overlooked_in_approving_glance_at_rail_plan/ (Mr. Toomey is also described as "a Cambridge city councilor.) Mr. Toomey points out the small number of Worcester commuters (8%) that would benefit from destinations near North Station; that such commuters currently have alternate access via the Orange Line at Back Bay Station.
Disrupting street traffic in Cambridge during commuter hours for such a small group makes no environmental or financial sense.
2. Editor's Analysis.
Thank you Archie.
I am very much uncertain as to where Mr. Toomey is really coming from.
Other members of the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Pols running around "objecting" give me the very strong opinion that the real people fighting for this proposal are in Cambridge loudly yelling against it. When these types yell so loud, it has a strong tendency to look like their usual con game to get responsible members of the Cambridge community to support a "compromise" which in reality is the only game in town.
The one thing which is clear is that it is highly destructive to the Charles River on the Cambridge side and to the animals living there. As such, the con games fit in with the Cambridge Pols’ pretty much non stop attacks on the Charles River, loudly yelling the opposite of where they really stand.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The Western Avenue Project, MassDOT, and reality
1. Retaliation against bicyclists?
2. Monday night's meeting.
3. Cambridge, MassDOT, silly sidewalk bike path.
1. Retaliation against bicyclists?
The city government is supposedly furthering its enforcement of traffic laws against Cambridge’s lawless bicycle population.
The city council has spent decades not wanting to know about bicycle lawlessness. Immediately after a public works proposal for Western Avenue was announced which makes the situation worse for bicyclists on Western Avenue, the city council started getting religion on traffic enforcement against bicyclists.
It looks to me like a very bad city council is turning the screws on organized bicyclists to get support for a yet another truly bizarre proposal.
2. Monday night's meeting.
Monday night at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation meeting on the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges, I spoke twice. The second time was the main purpose for my report, praise for standing up to environmentally destructive proposals.
The first time I spoke, I addressed the comments which were tossed together at the end of the report. I concluded with a strong plea to MassDOT to manage bicycles responsibly in it s project. I commented that the silly Cambridge plans for Western Avenue are proceeding in spite of the fact that the proposal makes things worse for serious bicyclists.
Bicycles are forced to ride on part of the sidewalk on the right and swerve over to cross on a green light, and then swerve back again to get back on the sidewalk. This is total nonsense for serious commuters. The plans have no meaningful concern for left turns whatsoever.
Cambridge’s response to the trouble with its proposal is that bicycles are not required to use this silly sidewalk path, they can ride in the street. The street is narrower to make room for the silly path. So meaningful bicyclists will be forced to use a narrower roadway to get wherever they are going because of the silly path.
Clearly an inferior position.
I pled with MassDOT to responsibly manage bicycles.
At the end of my comments, a person near me broke into spontaneous applause. I think he was there to support the environmentally destructive proposal.
The situation on the bridges is worse, and the further discussion at the meeting agreed with my analysis of MassDOT following Cambridge’s silly sidewalk bike path.
There was a lot of comment on bike movement in that meeting.
There was exactly zero comment supporting MassDOT extending Cambridge’s silly sidewalk bike path.
3. Cambridge, MassDOT, silly sidewalk bike path.
The reality is that I will be very happy with MassDOT whatever MassDOT does with regard to bicycles on the bridges because MassDOT seems to be standing up to the silly highway proposal.
However, I have respect for MassDOT. MassDOT is fully aware that exactly zero people in the room supported the silly bike path. MassDOT is fully aware that the people who tend to support Cambridge’s project could very easily be supporting it because they will support anything that puts Cambridge money in the pockets of contractors.
Will MassDOT repeat Cambridge’s silliness?
Remember the people speaking most loudly for environmental destruction by their new highway spoke of a duty on the part of MassDOT to “get things done.”
They were talking like they would be talking to Cambridge or to the DCR. They were talking like an old boys club, not a responsible government agency.
Will Cambridge back down from yet another nonsensical proposal? Or will Cambridge go forward with yet another nonsensical proposal?
Suddenly enforcing bike laws (to the extent they are) says Cambridge, as usual, has no interest in reality. Ratcheting up the appearance of enforcement says that Cambridge has no interest in reality. Cambridge wants a good old boy system.
Cambridge wants obeisance. Cambridge wants its victims to praise Cambridge for screwing its victims with this silly sidewalk bike path. Cambridge is turning the screws.
MassDOT is not part of this very bizarre world.
2. Monday night's meeting.
3. Cambridge, MassDOT, silly sidewalk bike path.
1. Retaliation against bicyclists?
The city government is supposedly furthering its enforcement of traffic laws against Cambridge’s lawless bicycle population.
The city council has spent decades not wanting to know about bicycle lawlessness. Immediately after a public works proposal for Western Avenue was announced which makes the situation worse for bicyclists on Western Avenue, the city council started getting religion on traffic enforcement against bicyclists.
It looks to me like a very bad city council is turning the screws on organized bicyclists to get support for a yet another truly bizarre proposal.
2. Monday night's meeting.
Monday night at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation meeting on the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges, I spoke twice. The second time was the main purpose for my report, praise for standing up to environmentally destructive proposals.
The first time I spoke, I addressed the comments which were tossed together at the end of the report. I concluded with a strong plea to MassDOT to manage bicycles responsibly in it s project. I commented that the silly Cambridge plans for Western Avenue are proceeding in spite of the fact that the proposal makes things worse for serious bicyclists.
Bicycles are forced to ride on part of the sidewalk on the right and swerve over to cross on a green light, and then swerve back again to get back on the sidewalk. This is total nonsense for serious commuters. The plans have no meaningful concern for left turns whatsoever.
Cambridge’s response to the trouble with its proposal is that bicycles are not required to use this silly sidewalk path, they can ride in the street. The street is narrower to make room for the silly path. So meaningful bicyclists will be forced to use a narrower roadway to get wherever they are going because of the silly path.
Clearly an inferior position.
I pled with MassDOT to responsibly manage bicycles.
At the end of my comments, a person near me broke into spontaneous applause. I think he was there to support the environmentally destructive proposal.
The situation on the bridges is worse, and the further discussion at the meeting agreed with my analysis of MassDOT following Cambridge’s silly sidewalk bike path.
There was a lot of comment on bike movement in that meeting.
There was exactly zero comment supporting MassDOT extending Cambridge’s silly sidewalk bike path.
3. Cambridge, MassDOT, silly sidewalk bike path.
The reality is that I will be very happy with MassDOT whatever MassDOT does with regard to bicycles on the bridges because MassDOT seems to be standing up to the silly highway proposal.
However, I have respect for MassDOT. MassDOT is fully aware that exactly zero people in the room supported the silly bike path. MassDOT is fully aware that the people who tend to support Cambridge’s project could very easily be supporting it because they will support anything that puts Cambridge money in the pockets of contractors.
Will MassDOT repeat Cambridge’s silliness?
Remember the people speaking most loudly for environmental destruction by their new highway spoke of a duty on the part of MassDOT to “get things done.”
They were talking like they would be talking to Cambridge or to the DCR. They were talking like an old boys club, not a responsible government agency.
Will Cambridge back down from yet another nonsensical proposal? Or will Cambridge go forward with yet another nonsensical proposal?
Suddenly enforcing bike laws (to the extent they are) says Cambridge, as usual, has no interest in reality. Ratcheting up the appearance of enforcement says that Cambridge has no interest in reality. Cambridge wants a good old boy system.
Cambridge wants obeisance. Cambridge wants its victims to praise Cambridge for screwing its victims with this silly sidewalk bike path. Cambridge is turning the screws.
MassDOT is not part of this very bizarre world.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Harvard University announces major construction on Charles River in Allston
1. Report.
2. Marilyn Wellons Comments.
1. Report.
Review of this week’s Environmental Monitor leads to the following document which is listed under Requests for Advisory Opinion in “Cambridge”: http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2011/072011em/rfao/6.pdf.
Harvard’s official Map of the Harvard Business School, at http://www.hbs.edu/about/visit.html, could be of help in understanding the proposal.
Reading through the legalize, I see a “150,000 square foot project” which will include 180 bedrooms plus a whole bunch of other stuff. Height is 78 feet which could be 8 or 9 stories.
The project includes a tunnel connecting the project to Baker Hall.
Because of that tunnel, review of the Harvard Business School Map leads me to the very strong opinion that the project will face on Soldiers Field Road and the Charles River in Harvard’s only undeveloped area between North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, adjacent to “Kresge” and to the massive Soldiers Field Park housing complex.
Please note that, as is usual when dealing with these people, this conclusion is anything but easy to come by. I think my conclusion is inescapable.
Other wording in the letter goes into Harvard’s plans for Western Avenue and misleads the casual reader (including me until I got the map) to believe this project would be on Western Avenue in Allston.
2. Marilyn Wellons Comments.
Harvard has been preparing the site for about a year. They put in fill at the SFR edge, as you can see from the elevation of the tree trunks near the fence.
2. Marilyn Wellons Comments.
1. Report.
Review of this week’s Environmental Monitor leads to the following document which is listed under Requests for Advisory Opinion in “Cambridge”: http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2011/072011em/rfao/6.pdf.
Harvard’s official Map of the Harvard Business School, at http://www.hbs.edu/about/visit.html, could be of help in understanding the proposal.
Reading through the legalize, I see a “150,000 square foot project” which will include 180 bedrooms plus a whole bunch of other stuff. Height is 78 feet which could be 8 or 9 stories.
The project includes a tunnel connecting the project to Baker Hall.
Because of that tunnel, review of the Harvard Business School Map leads me to the very strong opinion that the project will face on Soldiers Field Road and the Charles River in Harvard’s only undeveloped area between North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, adjacent to “Kresge” and to the massive Soldiers Field Park housing complex.
Please note that, as is usual when dealing with these people, this conclusion is anything but easy to come by. I think my conclusion is inescapable.
Other wording in the letter goes into Harvard’s plans for Western Avenue and misleads the casual reader (including me until I got the map) to believe this project would be on Western Avenue in Allston.
2. Marilyn Wellons Comments.
Harvard has been preparing the site for about a year. They put in fill at the SFR edge, as you can see from the elevation of the tree trunks near the fence.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
MassDOT a Breath of Fresh Air at Bridge Meeting
1. General.
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
3. Other issues.
4. Summary.
1. General.
Last night, July 19, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation held a public meeting on their plans for the River/Cambridge Street and Western Avenue Bridges across the Charles River. These are the next two bridges to the west from the BU Bridge and the 30 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
Loudly present were representatives of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy, blatant construction / design types, flaunting their contempt for the supposed purpose (looking at the name) of their organization.
They implored on MassDOT to “find a way to get things done” on their destructive highway project in the Charles River. “Getting things done” is a developer term with a secret definition. The secret definition is contempt for the environment, contempt for historical preservation, contempt for inconvenient laws, contempt for common decency.
The developer types have a dream. They want a new highway in the Charles on the Cambridge side, destroying the Charles, destroying wetlands, heartlessly abusing beautiful valuable animals and furthering the destruction of all animals, and destroying massive numbers of trees. They call this “getting things done.”
MassDOT is something the contractor types have contempt for: a public agency doing its job, a responsible, ethical, pro-environment, pro-historical protection, pro DOING THEIR JOB agency.
MassDOT thinks that, as far as their work on these two bridges goes, this irresponsible highway project is way out of bounds. The project would involve massive fill in the Charles. It would interfere with the waterway. It could require chopping holes in the bridge supports. It could only be justified from a mission point of view if both bridges could not be repaired in a historically responsible way. But they said it more nicely than I do.
I stood up and praised MassDOT. It is such a relief, after dealing with Cambridge for 35 years and the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its predecessor for perhaps 15 years, to deal with a governmental agency worthy of being proud of.
3. Other issues.
I asked MassDOT to make certain that their project complies with national standards for highway markings on one way streets.
I pointed out to MassDOT that their plans for the River / Cambridge Street bridge would cause traffic relocation to the Mass. Ave. Bridge, Memorial Drive and the Cambridge side streets, and that their traffic studies should allow for this.
MassDOT is continuing Cambridge’s bizarre bike arrangement from Western Avenue. I pointed out that Cambridge’s resolution for commuter bicycle traffic wanting to go straight ahead without a bunch of ins and outs, and for bicycles wanting to make left turns was summarized in the comment that the bikes would not be legally required to used the silly proposal. Bikes could join cars in the much narrowed car lanes.
I suggested to MassDOT that MassDOT rethink continuing Cambridge’s nuttiness.
There were other seriously thought out comments on the handling of bicycle traffic on the two bridges and the southern access.
4. Summary.
I got fed up with the poor dears with their dreams from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. I walked out, I believe, during a plea to “get things done.”
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
3. Other issues.
4. Summary.
1. General.
Last night, July 19, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation held a public meeting on their plans for the River/Cambridge Street and Western Avenue Bridges across the Charles River. These are the next two bridges to the west from the BU Bridge and the 30 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
Loudly present were representatives of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy, blatant construction / design types, flaunting their contempt for the supposed purpose (looking at the name) of their organization.
They implored on MassDOT to “find a way to get things done” on their destructive highway project in the Charles River. “Getting things done” is a developer term with a secret definition. The secret definition is contempt for the environment, contempt for historical preservation, contempt for inconvenient laws, contempt for common decency.
The developer types have a dream. They want a new highway in the Charles on the Cambridge side, destroying the Charles, destroying wetlands, heartlessly abusing beautiful valuable animals and furthering the destruction of all animals, and destroying massive numbers of trees. They call this “getting things done.”
MassDOT is something the contractor types have contempt for: a public agency doing its job, a responsible, ethical, pro-environment, pro-historical protection, pro DOING THEIR JOB agency.
MassDOT thinks that, as far as their work on these two bridges goes, this irresponsible highway project is way out of bounds. The project would involve massive fill in the Charles. It would interfere with the waterway. It could require chopping holes in the bridge supports. It could only be justified from a mission point of view if both bridges could not be repaired in a historically responsible way. But they said it more nicely than I do.
I stood up and praised MassDOT. It is such a relief, after dealing with Cambridge for 35 years and the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its predecessor for perhaps 15 years, to deal with a governmental agency worthy of being proud of.
3. Other issues.
I asked MassDOT to make certain that their project complies with national standards for highway markings on one way streets.
I pointed out to MassDOT that their plans for the River / Cambridge Street bridge would cause traffic relocation to the Mass. Ave. Bridge, Memorial Drive and the Cambridge side streets, and that their traffic studies should allow for this.
MassDOT is continuing Cambridge’s bizarre bike arrangement from Western Avenue. I pointed out that Cambridge’s resolution for commuter bicycle traffic wanting to go straight ahead without a bunch of ins and outs, and for bicycles wanting to make left turns was summarized in the comment that the bikes would not be legally required to used the silly proposal. Bikes could join cars in the much narrowed car lanes.
I suggested to MassDOT that MassDOT rethink continuing Cambridge’s nuttiness.
There were other seriously thought out comments on the handling of bicycle traffic on the two bridges and the southern access.
4. Summary.
I got fed up with the poor dears with their dreams from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. I walked out, I believe, during a plea to “get things done.”
Monday, July 18, 2011
Marilyn responds to the Globe’s lack of knowledge with historical photos.
Marilyn Wellons followed up my photo posting of yesterday here and on facebook with three photos from Phil Barber, all photos © 2008, Phil Barber.
1. Here are photos of the goose meadow from 1990 from PBarber. First one, February 1990. Next 2 are in April of that year.
My Comment:
Thank you Marilyn. Excellent photo.
It is a dramatic difference in perspective from the shots I have been posting.
The reason, I would think is that it is shot from above, on the BU Bridge. The photos I have been posting are at ground level.
Excellent, thank you.
2. Here's another, same year.
My comment:
This is a view of the portion of the current construction zone which is very much inexcusable. This is the upper / norther portion by the on ramp to Memorial drive.
3. This was taken in 1990, 9 years before the DCR first "restored" it.
My response:
This should be an excellent view of the current construction zone.
To the left should be the BU Bridge. To the right is the on ramp to Memorial Drive.
The trees in the middle, I guess, were destroyed by the state in the 1990's. I do not remember them.
Straight ahead, in the corner would be the concrete and stariers illegally installed by BU in October 1999. BU started the work BEFORE a public hearing scheduled by the Cambridge Conservation Commission, and completed it before the first day they could legally do it.
As is tradition with the people we have been dealing with, BU denied doing the work for about six months, until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. BU then started bragging about the destruction and blaimed the six months of lies on the president's secretary. She was not fired.
1. Here are photos of the goose meadow from 1990 from PBarber. First one, February 1990. Next 2 are in April of that year.
My Comment:
Thank you Marilyn. Excellent photo.
It is a dramatic difference in perspective from the shots I have been posting.
The reason, I would think is that it is shot from above, on the BU Bridge. The photos I have been posting are at ground level.
Excellent, thank you.
2. Here's another, same year.
My comment:
This is a view of the portion of the current construction zone which is very much inexcusable. This is the upper / norther portion by the on ramp to Memorial drive.
3. This was taken in 1990, 9 years before the DCR first "restored" it.
My response:
This should be an excellent view of the current construction zone.
To the left should be the BU Bridge. To the right is the on ramp to Memorial Drive.
The trees in the middle, I guess, were destroyed by the state in the 1990's. I do not remember them.
Straight ahead, in the corner would be the concrete and stariers illegally installed by BU in October 1999. BU started the work BEFORE a public hearing scheduled by the Cambridge Conservation Commission, and completed it before the first day they could legally do it.
As is tradition with the people we have been dealing with, BU denied doing the work for about six months, until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. BU then started bragging about the destruction and blaimed the six months of lies on the president's secretary. She was not fired.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Some more photos of an environment the Boston Globe says does not exist.
As promised in my response to the Boston Globe’s not knowing what it was talking about or not wanting to know what it is talking about, I will provide a few photos now from my March 29, 2011, shoot and follow up with more later.
The problem is the norm in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River, of Alewife, of Fresh Pond and of too much else. The real problem is a massive machine which controls liberal politics in Cambridge plus, at least on environmental matters, beyond Cambridge. It is silly to consider the fake groups which dominate the scene in Cambridge, MA, anything other than corruption. It could be one or two people lying. It could be a person not even visible in the group, lying and fooling key people.
But the reality is corruption of an excellent cause, protection of the environment, into destruction of the environment.
People who should know, such as the Boston Globe, saying this does not exist is a very major part of the problem.
In the photo of the adults with the babies crossing the track, I commented that the area on the nesting area side of the track was lush vegetation until the Charles River Conservancy started destroying vegetation for the state bureaucrats who, in turn, are coordinating closely with Cambridge. This is a shot from below to the right of where I was standing when I took that shot.
This hillside was lush vegetation. The geese happily lived in this lush vegetation. The ground vegetation was destroyed. It has not come back, implying poisoning.
This photo is of the water end of the swath which has been destroyed for work on the BU Bridge, work which has been completed. Once again, formerly lush ground vegetation. The swath which was destroyed has not been returned. The arch is of the BU Bridge. The far side, looking through the arch, is Boston. There is a very major difference in Boston. There has been major destruction of ground vegetation on the Boston side. The Charles River Conservancy admits it and has been apologized. The difference is that Boston has a government worthy of respect. Cambridge has a government with a lot of fake groups running around telling people to look at everything else.
This area is of vegetation which was not destroyed by the state before the BU Bridge work and was not destroyed in the BU Bridge construction. The area which needed to be destroyed for access is to the left. It continues to be destroyed. Straight ahead is the silly destruction area, inexcusable from the beginning. Still destroyed. The geese are trying to live here. This vegetation was normal until and continues to be normal on the hillside. It is a tiny area in a large swath of destruction. It has since turned green.
This could be a couple, possibly trying to nest between the Grand Junction track and the steep hillside. The Grand Junction bridge is to the right. The Charles River is straight ahead.
The Charles River White Geese now nest where they can. They used to have a beautiful vegetated nesting area, part of a mile long habitat in which they did a mini-migration. Nine months of the year, they traveled, living mostly at Magazine Beach. Three months of the year, they returned to a place of natural beauty to mate and nest.
The goose to the right would be the mother goose on her eggs. The goose to the left would be the father goose protecting the nest. Geese have nested against the tracks. They have no other place left.
The state is trying to kill them piece by piece. The state, in its publicly announced plans, translating the secret definitions, says it wants to kill them. And Cambridge with its fake groups runs around calling itself holier than thou is a very major public relations campaign in support.
And the Boston Globe says they do not exist.
The problem is the norm in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River, of Alewife, of Fresh Pond and of too much else. The real problem is a massive machine which controls liberal politics in Cambridge plus, at least on environmental matters, beyond Cambridge. It is silly to consider the fake groups which dominate the scene in Cambridge, MA, anything other than corruption. It could be one or two people lying. It could be a person not even visible in the group, lying and fooling key people.
But the reality is corruption of an excellent cause, protection of the environment, into destruction of the environment.
People who should know, such as the Boston Globe, saying this does not exist is a very major part of the problem.
In the photo of the adults with the babies crossing the track, I commented that the area on the nesting area side of the track was lush vegetation until the Charles River Conservancy started destroying vegetation for the state bureaucrats who, in turn, are coordinating closely with Cambridge. This is a shot from below to the right of where I was standing when I took that shot.
This hillside was lush vegetation. The geese happily lived in this lush vegetation. The ground vegetation was destroyed. It has not come back, implying poisoning.
This photo is of the water end of the swath which has been destroyed for work on the BU Bridge, work which has been completed. Once again, formerly lush ground vegetation. The swath which was destroyed has not been returned. The arch is of the BU Bridge. The far side, looking through the arch, is Boston. There is a very major difference in Boston. There has been major destruction of ground vegetation on the Boston side. The Charles River Conservancy admits it and has been apologized. The difference is that Boston has a government worthy of respect. Cambridge has a government with a lot of fake groups running around telling people to look at everything else.
This area is of vegetation which was not destroyed by the state before the BU Bridge work and was not destroyed in the BU Bridge construction. The area which needed to be destroyed for access is to the left. It continues to be destroyed. Straight ahead is the silly destruction area, inexcusable from the beginning. Still destroyed. The geese are trying to live here. This vegetation was normal until and continues to be normal on the hillside. It is a tiny area in a large swath of destruction. It has since turned green.
This could be a couple, possibly trying to nest between the Grand Junction track and the steep hillside. The Grand Junction bridge is to the right. The Charles River is straight ahead.
The Charles River White Geese now nest where they can. They used to have a beautiful vegetated nesting area, part of a mile long habitat in which they did a mini-migration. Nine months of the year, they traveled, living mostly at Magazine Beach. Three months of the year, they returned to a place of natural beauty to mate and nest.
The goose to the right would be the mother goose on her eggs. The goose to the left would be the father goose protecting the nest. Geese have nested against the tracks. They have no other place left.
The state is trying to kill them piece by piece. The state, in its publicly announced plans, translating the secret definitions, says it wants to kill them. And Cambridge with its fake groups runs around calling itself holier than thou is a very major public relations campaign in support.
And the Boston Globe says they do not exist.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
What the Boston Globe does not see or does not want to see.
We have recently published Archie Mazmanian’s response to a Boston Globe editorial supporting passenger use on the Grand Junction, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/little-bridge-that-could-response-to.html.
The Boston Globe’s description of the Grand Junction in that editorial stands out:
**********
the Grand Junction railroad, a little-used but strategically located 3-mile rail line that connects Allston and Cambridge via a graffiti-covered trestle underneath the BU bridge
**********
Here is a photo of what the Boston Globe does not know or does not want to know, described as “a graffiti-covered tresle underneath the BU Bridge.”
This photo was taken in April. To the left, you can see the Cambridge end of the railroad bridge. In the middle are clearly visible four of the Charles River White Geese crossing the Grand Junction railroad track.
Less visible are the tiny yellow shapes with some black on the top, to the left of the adults, pushed up against the left portion of the track. These are two tiny, perhaps, a day old babies of the Charles River White Geese.
To the right is the destruction which was their Nesting Area for most of the last 30 years. To the left and out of view is a steep incline between the track and the river. I would anticipate the nest in which these babies hatched is somewhere on that incline. These little guys look too small to get over the track, but, in order to nest, the parents have had to go on the wrong side of the tracks to have their babies.
This is what the Boston Globe does not want to know. This is where the Boston Globe wants to run passenger trains, on a route inferior to the current route from a transportation point of view, on a route where Cambridge and the state bureaucrats are doing the best they can to kill off all resident animals.
This particular technique is a silly passenger train route.
And the Globe does not, apparently, want to know reality.
I have further recent photos of this area which I will post in the next few days.
ADDENDUM: The area to the immediate right has been lush with vegetation for most of the last 30 years, but the state, Cambridge, and the Charles River Conservancy are destroying nature. The devastation you see has been CREATED since the CRC started doing the state’s environmental dirty work.
The Boston Globe’s description of the Grand Junction in that editorial stands out:
**********
the Grand Junction railroad, a little-used but strategically located 3-mile rail line that connects Allston and Cambridge via a graffiti-covered trestle underneath the BU bridge
**********
Here is a photo of what the Boston Globe does not know or does not want to know, described as “a graffiti-covered tresle underneath the BU Bridge.”
This photo was taken in April. To the left, you can see the Cambridge end of the railroad bridge. In the middle are clearly visible four of the Charles River White Geese crossing the Grand Junction railroad track.
Less visible are the tiny yellow shapes with some black on the top, to the left of the adults, pushed up against the left portion of the track. These are two tiny, perhaps, a day old babies of the Charles River White Geese.
To the right is the destruction which was their Nesting Area for most of the last 30 years. To the left and out of view is a steep incline between the track and the river. I would anticipate the nest in which these babies hatched is somewhere on that incline. These little guys look too small to get over the track, but, in order to nest, the parents have had to go on the wrong side of the tracks to have their babies.
This is what the Boston Globe does not want to know. This is where the Boston Globe wants to run passenger trains, on a route inferior to the current route from a transportation point of view, on a route where Cambridge and the state bureaucrats are doing the best they can to kill off all resident animals.
This particular technique is a silly passenger train route.
And the Globe does not, apparently, want to know reality.
I have further recent photos of this area which I will post in the next few days.
ADDENDUM: The area to the immediate right has been lush with vegetation for most of the last 30 years, but the state, Cambridge, and the Charles River Conservancy are destroying nature. The devastation you see has been CREATED since the CRC started doing the state’s environmental dirty work.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Trees targeted by environmental destroyers receiving state ENVIRONMENTAL license place money.
I have done enough detail on the reprehensible City of Cambridge and its friends in the state bureaucracy.
I have done enough detail on the fake groups they work through, including the FALSELY named Charles River Conservancy.
Here are photos taken on March 29, 2011, of a healthy, excellent grove of APPROXIMATELY 105 trees on Memorial Drive of which APPROXIMATELY 83 HEALTHY trees are slated for destruction for a bizarre highway project. This bizarre project which fits in the same level of lack of quality as the bizarre projects at Magazine Beach, bizarre, needless animal abuse in the BU Bridge project, and the destruction of pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, rather clearly by this fake environmental group.
These trees are but a portion of the needless destruction being fought for by this fake environmental group. The majority of trees not shown are much larger.
The fake environmental group, the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” claims it is getting moneys from the sale of ENVIRONMENTAL license plates, as just reported.
The hypocrites in Cambridge have a solution. They are fighting invasives. They do not want to know about the outrages on the Charles River, Alewife and Fresh Pond. They are fighting invasives, and will brag that they are holier than thou.
Governor Patrick may have stood in against the lies from the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats, this time, lied that they were destroying nothing but sick trees. The sick trees were destroyed years ago. The bureaucrats were seeking Obama money for the destruction. Patrick apparently stood up to the lying destroyers and said no.
It appears that the hypocrites from Cambridge are seeking money from the legislature for this bizarre destruction.
And the fake environmental group running which is the most visible supporter of this irresponsible and needless destruction claims to be getting money from environmental license plates.
This is a partial printing. All my photos from March 29 will be printed on the Charles River White Geese facebook page.
Contact information is on the “what you can do” button. Please remember, however, that pretty much all incumbent Cambridge pols should be considered beneath respect.
I have done enough detail on the fake groups they work through, including the FALSELY named Charles River Conservancy.
Here are photos taken on March 29, 2011, of a healthy, excellent grove of APPROXIMATELY 105 trees on Memorial Drive of which APPROXIMATELY 83 HEALTHY trees are slated for destruction for a bizarre highway project. This bizarre project which fits in the same level of lack of quality as the bizarre projects at Magazine Beach, bizarre, needless animal abuse in the BU Bridge project, and the destruction of pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, rather clearly by this fake environmental group.
These trees are but a portion of the needless destruction being fought for by this fake environmental group. The majority of trees not shown are much larger.
The fake environmental group, the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” claims it is getting moneys from the sale of ENVIRONMENTAL license plates, as just reported.
The hypocrites in Cambridge have a solution. They are fighting invasives. They do not want to know about the outrages on the Charles River, Alewife and Fresh Pond. They are fighting invasives, and will brag that they are holier than thou.
Governor Patrick may have stood in against the lies from the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats, this time, lied that they were destroying nothing but sick trees. The sick trees were destroyed years ago. The bureaucrats were seeking Obama money for the destruction. Patrick apparently stood up to the lying destroyers and said no.
It appears that the hypocrites from Cambridge are seeking money from the legislature for this bizarre destruction.
And the fake environmental group running which is the most visible supporter of this irresponsible and needless destruction claims to be getting money from environmental license plates.
This is a partial printing. All my photos from March 29 will be printed on the Charles River White Geese facebook page.
Contact information is on the “what you can do” button. Please remember, however, that pretty much all incumbent Cambridge pols should be considered beneath respect.
Mass. License plate subsidy goes to environmental destroyer.
The fake group problem in Cambridge exists in spades on the Charles River and now it is getting money which people are paying to the state to protect our environment.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has announced in its July 2011 newsletter that it is getting money from the Massachusetts Environment Trust. Quoting from its newsletter, “The Massachusetts Environmental Trust is funded through the purchase of specialty "Preserve the Trust" license plates.”
This group has run around since 2003 poisoning the eggs of as much waterfowl on the Charles River as it can get away with. It is actively fighting for the destruction of hundreds of healthy trees on the Charles River.
It conducted a “swim in” to support the bizarre environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. Very prominent at Magazine Beach is a newly installed wall of introduced bushes blocking access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach, and blocking the swimming which it lied was being improved at Magazine Beach.
The Magazine Beach project supported by this group destroyed seven acres of grass which had survived for the better part of a century naturally. The responsible grass was replaced with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive.
The Charles River Conservancy aggressively supports heartless animal abuse.
I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission expressing shock upon learning about this group’s wanton destructive of native vegetation protecting migrating waterfowl on the Boston side of the Charles. This group is the obvious culprit in the destruction of pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse destroying the world of the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River "Conservancy" cheerleads, as far as I know, pretty much every irresponsible environmental destructive project pushed by Cambridge and the state bureaucrats on the Charles River. It is the most visible pusher of an irresponsible highway to destroy parts of the Charles, its banks, its animal habitat and a very large number of trees.
Any money from the sale of environmental licence plates are going to this reprehensible group?
Outrageous.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has announced in its July 2011 newsletter that it is getting money from the Massachusetts Environment Trust. Quoting from its newsletter, “The Massachusetts Environmental Trust is funded through the purchase of specialty "Preserve the Trust" license plates.”
This group has run around since 2003 poisoning the eggs of as much waterfowl on the Charles River as it can get away with. It is actively fighting for the destruction of hundreds of healthy trees on the Charles River.
It conducted a “swim in” to support the bizarre environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. Very prominent at Magazine Beach is a newly installed wall of introduced bushes blocking access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach, and blocking the swimming which it lied was being improved at Magazine Beach.
The Magazine Beach project supported by this group destroyed seven acres of grass which had survived for the better part of a century naturally. The responsible grass was replaced with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive.
The Charles River Conservancy aggressively supports heartless animal abuse.
I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission expressing shock upon learning about this group’s wanton destructive of native vegetation protecting migrating waterfowl on the Boston side of the Charles. This group is the obvious culprit in the destruction of pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse destroying the world of the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River "Conservancy" cheerleads, as far as I know, pretty much every irresponsible environmental destructive project pushed by Cambridge and the state bureaucrats on the Charles River. It is the most visible pusher of an irresponsible highway to destroy parts of the Charles, its banks, its animal habitat and a very large number of trees.
Any money from the sale of environmental licence plates are going to this reprehensible group?
Outrageous.
THE LITTLE BRIDGE THAT COULD — Response to Globe Editorial
THE LITTLE BRIDGE THAT COULD
By Archie Mazmanian
The Boston Globe’s lead editorial on Monday, July 11, 2011, available here: http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-11/bostonglobe/29761832_1_commuter-rail-commuter-trains-mbta titled “MBTA should run trains from Worcester to North Station,” which includes an inset depicting the Charles River and the Grand Junction Railroad line in Cambridge, might be considered by some as a grown-up version of a children’s story involving a “little engine,” Perhaps the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) trestle under the Boston University Bridge should be now known as “The Little Bridge That Could.” While the editorial focuses only on adding a few commuter trains to the currently very limited use of the GJRL, it recognizes ambitious plans over the years which have “planners daydreaming of bike paths and streetcars.” Viewers at this Blog are familiar with the Urban Ring project’s Charles River crossing proposed for bus rapid transit articulated with 60-foot BRT buses either over or under the BU Bridge, a long-studied project which remains on hold for many reasons, including the financial condition of the Commonwealth.
The Boston Globe’s proposal may be comparable to the camel getting its nose under the tent (or in this case wet at the Charles River), although it recognizes that “[m]any Cantabrigians are wary and have rightly insisted that the MBTA ensure any additional trains don’t cause endless traffic tie-ups.” There have been tie-ups in the past, even with the limited use of the GJRL in Cambridge, but the timing of such use can avoid rush hour commuter traffic. Unfortunately, the proposed commuter trains from Framingham/Worcester would be coming and returning at times of heavy commuter traffic on Cambridge’s roads in the area of the GJRL.
Although the Globe says the addition of the commuter trains should not be costly, it does not address how many persons would benefit in comparison to how many persons would be impacted by resulting traffic tie-ups somewhat less than endless. Surely a cost/benefit study is required.
The editorial does not address potential environmental issues; nor does it address the plight of the Charles River White Geese (CRWG). Perhaps the Globe is not aware of their plight. To its credit, the Globe via columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recognizes the environmental importance to the Charles River of the reintroduction of shad. But maybe the Globe should also honk out for the CRWG, whose environs would be further diminished by the Globe’s editorial proposal.
And keep in mind that the anticipated development of Harvard’s extensive Allston real estate holdings will require significant and costly transportation infrastructure, including for public transit, which might severely test “The Little Bridge That Could’ and the GJRL through Cambridge.
By Archie Mazmanian
The Boston Globe’s lead editorial on Monday, July 11, 2011, available here: http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-11/bostonglobe/29761832_1_commuter-rail-commuter-trains-mbta titled “MBTA should run trains from Worcester to North Station,” which includes an inset depicting the Charles River and the Grand Junction Railroad line in Cambridge, might be considered by some as a grown-up version of a children’s story involving a “little engine,” Perhaps the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) trestle under the Boston University Bridge should be now known as “The Little Bridge That Could.” While the editorial focuses only on adding a few commuter trains to the currently very limited use of the GJRL, it recognizes ambitious plans over the years which have “planners daydreaming of bike paths and streetcars.” Viewers at this Blog are familiar with the Urban Ring project’s Charles River crossing proposed for bus rapid transit articulated with 60-foot BRT buses either over or under the BU Bridge, a long-studied project which remains on hold for many reasons, including the financial condition of the Commonwealth.
The Boston Globe’s proposal may be comparable to the camel getting its nose under the tent (or in this case wet at the Charles River), although it recognizes that “[m]any Cantabrigians are wary and have rightly insisted that the MBTA ensure any additional trains don’t cause endless traffic tie-ups.” There have been tie-ups in the past, even with the limited use of the GJRL in Cambridge, but the timing of such use can avoid rush hour commuter traffic. Unfortunately, the proposed commuter trains from Framingham/Worcester would be coming and returning at times of heavy commuter traffic on Cambridge’s roads in the area of the GJRL.
Although the Globe says the addition of the commuter trains should not be costly, it does not address how many persons would benefit in comparison to how many persons would be impacted by resulting traffic tie-ups somewhat less than endless. Surely a cost/benefit study is required.
The editorial does not address potential environmental issues; nor does it address the plight of the Charles River White Geese (CRWG). Perhaps the Globe is not aware of their plight. To its credit, the Globe via columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recognizes the environmental importance to the Charles River of the reintroduction of shad. But maybe the Globe should also honk out for the CRWG, whose environs would be further diminished by the Globe’s editorial proposal.
And keep in mind that the anticipated development of Harvard’s extensive Allston real estate holdings will require significant and costly transportation infrastructure, including for public transit, which might severely test “The Little Bridge That Could’ and the GJRL through Cambridge.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Boston Herald op ed on the BU Bridge
The BU Bridge is heart of what used to be a mile long habitat lived in by the Charles River White Geese. Things have changed with the goal created by the state bureaucrats with clear Cambridge support to kill off all animals living in the Charles River Basin. The current project, like a series of frequently bizarre projects, is needlessly and heartless cruel to these beautiful, valuable beings.
The oped is entitled “A Bridge to Nowhere Fast” by Stanley Spiegel. It was published last Saturday, in hard copy and on line.
I strongly appreciate this link being passed on to me.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0709a_bridge_to_nowhere_fast/
The oped is entitled “A Bridge to Nowhere Fast” by Stanley Spiegel. It was published last Saturday, in hard copy and on line.
I strongly appreciate this link being passed on to me.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0709a_bridge_to_nowhere_fast/
Cambridge Pols announce attack on Invasives, still neutral or celebrating massive environmental destruction
1. Introduction.
2. The latest con game.
1. Introduction.
Cambridge Pols announce attack on invasives. They are still “neutral” or “celebrating” massive environmental destruction coming at Alewife, ongoing at Fresh Pond and ongoing and accelerating on the Charles River.
One of the key techniques by which an environmentally “reprehensible” (to quote a Civil Rights judge) City of Cambridge gets away with its environmental outrages is through pretty much non stop con games. They are defending against pretty much everything but do not want to know about their own massive destruction of the environment.
They have been known to conduct “public meetings” to allow destructive bureaucrats announce their “plans” and to explicitly prohibit comment on reality.
Of major importance, including among the typically lovely sounding sponsors are two “groups” which claim to be defending Fresh Pond.
I have seen massive, irresponsible logging by Cambridge on the Fresh Pond reservation. I have seen and heard the assistant City Manager brag of plans to plant a thousand saplings. Given the density of tree population, and the much less dense practices in their plantings, planting a thousand saplings would of necessity involve destruction of thousand of mature trees.
The City Manager brags that he has a right to only announce his “plans” on environmental destruction. If you expect to learn what he intends to destroy, well that is not relevant to his “plans”, and is something you have to pry out separately.
You can be certain that the Cambridge Pols will trump up their attack on invasives and continue not wanting to know about their irresponsible destruction at Alewife, Fresh Pond and on the Charles.
2. The latest con game.
The following is a edited version of the latest con game, taken from an broadly circulated email. Edits are intended to remove less general comments. Fresh Pond is one block from Alewife. There is no expression of concern for the forthcoming logging at Alewife.
The people passing on this invitation were involved in the celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles River which neglected to mention the environmental destruction.
**********
Please see the following description of an opportunity to protect native species at Fresh Pond and in Cambridge neighborhoods by participating in a community-wide weeding campaign for one of the invasive plants, called Black Swallow-wort.
Pod Patrol Campaign Kickoff
Sunday, July at Fresh Pond Reservation
Meet in the Water Department parking lot at the volunteer trailer.
Black Swallow-wort is one of the most aggressive invasive weeds, and it is spreading at Fresh Pond and throughout Cambridge. You can help limit its further spread by removing the jalapeno pepper - like seed pods before they release their wind-borne seeds. Join other volunteers and Water Department staff as we learn more about Black Swallow-wort and start removing pods around the Reservation; then take what you learn into your own neighborhood. During the summer we’ll be tracking our progress block by block throughout Cambridge. The Pod Patrol is sponsored by [ed: Includes two “groups” which claim to be defending Fresh Pond, an area notable for massive, needless actual / announced tree destruction by the City of Cambridge. My reading of announcements includes translation of secret definitions.].
2. The latest con game.
1. Introduction.
Cambridge Pols announce attack on invasives. They are still “neutral” or “celebrating” massive environmental destruction coming at Alewife, ongoing at Fresh Pond and ongoing and accelerating on the Charles River.
One of the key techniques by which an environmentally “reprehensible” (to quote a Civil Rights judge) City of Cambridge gets away with its environmental outrages is through pretty much non stop con games. They are defending against pretty much everything but do not want to know about their own massive destruction of the environment.
They have been known to conduct “public meetings” to allow destructive bureaucrats announce their “plans” and to explicitly prohibit comment on reality.
Of major importance, including among the typically lovely sounding sponsors are two “groups” which claim to be defending Fresh Pond.
I have seen massive, irresponsible logging by Cambridge on the Fresh Pond reservation. I have seen and heard the assistant City Manager brag of plans to plant a thousand saplings. Given the density of tree population, and the much less dense practices in their plantings, planting a thousand saplings would of necessity involve destruction of thousand of mature trees.
The City Manager brags that he has a right to only announce his “plans” on environmental destruction. If you expect to learn what he intends to destroy, well that is not relevant to his “plans”, and is something you have to pry out separately.
You can be certain that the Cambridge Pols will trump up their attack on invasives and continue not wanting to know about their irresponsible destruction at Alewife, Fresh Pond and on the Charles.
2. The latest con game.
The following is a edited version of the latest con game, taken from an broadly circulated email. Edits are intended to remove less general comments. Fresh Pond is one block from Alewife. There is no expression of concern for the forthcoming logging at Alewife.
The people passing on this invitation were involved in the celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles River which neglected to mention the environmental destruction.
**********
Please see the following description of an opportunity to protect native species at Fresh Pond and in Cambridge neighborhoods by participating in a community-wide weeding campaign for one of the invasive plants, called Black Swallow-wort.
Pod Patrol Campaign Kickoff
Sunday, July at Fresh Pond Reservation
Meet in the Water Department parking lot at the volunteer trailer.
Black Swallow-wort is one of the most aggressive invasive weeds, and it is spreading at Fresh Pond and throughout Cambridge. You can help limit its further spread by removing the jalapeno pepper - like seed pods before they release their wind-borne seeds. Join other volunteers and Water Department staff as we learn more about Black Swallow-wort and start removing pods around the Reservation; then take what you learn into your own neighborhood. During the summer we’ll be tracking our progress block by block throughout Cambridge. The Pod Patrol is sponsored by [ed: Includes two “groups” which claim to be defending Fresh Pond, an area notable for massive, needless actual / announced tree destruction by the City of Cambridge. My reading of announcements includes translation of secret definitions.].
Friday, July 08, 2011
Harvard Landbanking Shopping Center pays rewards in Allston
The environmental outrage ongoing on the Charles River can be linked in many ways to Harvard University’s empire building on the south side of the Charles River in Allston.
The latest step is reported by the Harvard Crimson at http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/7/7/masshousing-loan-charlesview-allston-harvard/.
Harvard has destroyed for all practical purposes a neighborhood shopping center in Allston by refusing to rent as vacancies occurred. The entire western side is now vacant. Undestroyed is a very large super market at the southern end, a fast food chain establishment on part of the northern / Western Avenue end, and a pet store at the northeast corner, Western Avenue and Everett Street.
Christian A. Herter Park, showing at the top of the enclosed map has been severely attacked in the state’s attacks on wildlife.
The now severely restricted habitat of the Charles River White Geese is off the map to the right and slightly down.
Harvard now owns a very high percentage of the area above / to the north of Western Avenue and below / south of Western Avenue to the right / east of the shopping center. Harvard’s ownership is nearly total east of North Harvard Street.
On the map, the pointer on the right is the location Harvard has forced to be sold to it. Harvard considers this the cornerstone of its expansion. The pointer on the left is the destroyed shopping center. According to the report, the replacement property will apparently be a high rise at the southwestern corner of the destroyed shopping center. Will Harvard lower itself to allowing people to shop there again?
Stay tuned.
The latest step is reported by the Harvard Crimson at http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/7/7/masshousing-loan-charlesview-allston-harvard/.
Harvard has destroyed for all practical purposes a neighborhood shopping center in Allston by refusing to rent as vacancies occurred. The entire western side is now vacant. Undestroyed is a very large super market at the southern end, a fast food chain establishment on part of the northern / Western Avenue end, and a pet store at the northeast corner, Western Avenue and Everett Street.
Christian A. Herter Park, showing at the top of the enclosed map has been severely attacked in the state’s attacks on wildlife.
The now severely restricted habitat of the Charles River White Geese is off the map to the right and slightly down.
Harvard now owns a very high percentage of the area above / to the north of Western Avenue and below / south of Western Avenue to the right / east of the shopping center. Harvard’s ownership is nearly total east of North Harvard Street.
On the map, the pointer on the right is the location Harvard has forced to be sold to it. Harvard considers this the cornerstone of its expansion. The pointer on the left is the destroyed shopping center. According to the report, the replacement property will apparently be a high rise at the southwestern corner of the destroyed shopping center. Will Harvard lower itself to allowing people to shop there again?
Stay tuned.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
A response to a proposal to feed on geese from the Charles River
The Cambridge Chronicle printed, in a non prominent place on the June 30, 2011 op ed page and on line, a letter from an individual proposing that the geese on the Charles River be used as a renewable source of food.
The following is Marilyn Wellons’ proposed response, sent to the Cambridge Chronicle on July 7. I thank Marilyn for her submission. I have been working on responses, at least in my mind. My key response which I submitted on line was, to put it mildly, not as moderate as Marilyn’s, and Marilyn’s response deservedly is not particularly moderate.
*********
To the Editor:
Responding to a recent proposal to slaughter Canada geese on the Charles River to feed metro Boston’s hungry people, I submit the following alternative.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation has estimated the resident population of Canadas between the Watertown dam and Boston harbor at about 300. By poisoning the geese’s eggs since 2003, it has worked hard with the MSPCA and the CRC to hold that number down.
Most recent online data for the Greater Boston Food Bank indicate it fed nearly 400,000 people in 2009 (http://www.gbfb.org/aboutHunger/HungerStudy.cfm). By 2010 the need was surely even greater.
Given the number of hungry in these admittedly dismal times—even if the DCR were to establish industrial goose farming on the river—the supply of Canadas (a federally protected species) would be scarcely worth the effort. There are, however, many other cheap, local sources of protein the writer of your June 30, 2011 letter has failed to consider that would begin to fill those empty stomachs.
Elsewhere in the world people turn, for example, to dogs and cats. The MSPCA’s and other local shelters, overflowing with unwanted animals, should be glad to contribute. There are even, as Jonathan Swift pointed out in his own Modest Proposal (1729), the children of the poor themselves. They are more plentiful and, roasted at a year’s age, would surpass the food value of Canadas, to be sure.
As irritating as children may be from time to time, it is nevertheless true that, as with the proposal for geese or dogs or cats, there may be objections to the slaughter of children. Still, people are hungry. What to do?
Rats are grilled and served outside bars in other parts of the world. In metro Boston there are even more rats than children or unwanted companion animals. Given Cambridge’s own plentiful supply of rats, this is perhaps a better solution. The city already has the services of a rat consultant who could ensure the supply of locally sourced animals to our food pantries.
As your writer says, times are indeed dismal. There’s a chance restaurants and supermarkets might take up the rat fashion, with the bonus of an overall improvement in the city’s carbon footprint. With chimichurri or béarnaise, who knows how good a rat can be?
The following is Marilyn Wellons’ proposed response, sent to the Cambridge Chronicle on July 7. I thank Marilyn for her submission. I have been working on responses, at least in my mind. My key response which I submitted on line was, to put it mildly, not as moderate as Marilyn’s, and Marilyn’s response deservedly is not particularly moderate.
*********
To the Editor:
Responding to a recent proposal to slaughter Canada geese on the Charles River to feed metro Boston’s hungry people, I submit the following alternative.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation has estimated the resident population of Canadas between the Watertown dam and Boston harbor at about 300. By poisoning the geese’s eggs since 2003, it has worked hard with the MSPCA and the CRC to hold that number down.
Most recent online data for the Greater Boston Food Bank indicate it fed nearly 400,000 people in 2009 (http://www.gbfb.org/aboutHunger/HungerStudy.cfm). By 2010 the need was surely even greater.
Given the number of hungry in these admittedly dismal times—even if the DCR were to establish industrial goose farming on the river—the supply of Canadas (a federally protected species) would be scarcely worth the effort. There are, however, many other cheap, local sources of protein the writer of your June 30, 2011 letter has failed to consider that would begin to fill those empty stomachs.
Elsewhere in the world people turn, for example, to dogs and cats. The MSPCA’s and other local shelters, overflowing with unwanted animals, should be glad to contribute. There are even, as Jonathan Swift pointed out in his own Modest Proposal (1729), the children of the poor themselves. They are more plentiful and, roasted at a year’s age, would surpass the food value of Canadas, to be sure.
As irritating as children may be from time to time, it is nevertheless true that, as with the proposal for geese or dogs or cats, there may be objections to the slaughter of children. Still, people are hungry. What to do?
Rats are grilled and served outside bars in other parts of the world. In metro Boston there are even more rats than children or unwanted companion animals. Given Cambridge’s own plentiful supply of rats, this is perhaps a better solution. The city already has the services of a rat consultant who could ensure the supply of locally sourced animals to our food pantries.
As your writer says, times are indeed dismal. There’s a chance restaurants and supermarkets might take up the rat fashion, with the bonus of an overall improvement in the city’s carbon footprint. With chimichurri or béarnaise, who knows how good a rat can be?
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
South Coast Rail passes Environmental Review. Grand Junction passenger service loses more ground to reality.
One of the key games being played by key Cambridge activists lost another point.
The Cambridge Pols in their fight for environmental destruction for the benefit of the institutions are fighting for commuter rail on the Grand Junction railroad. They are loudly yelling that everybody else is the bad guy, and have they got a deal for you.
The pols claim this route is needed for Worcester to Boston transportation.
Trouble for the bad guys is Worcester to Boston transportation currently goes to South Station and the South Coast Rail project includes a proposal to expand tracks at South Station.
The proposal for expanding tracks at South Station restores a lot more trackage than is needed for the South Coast Rail. Excess trackage can be used for expansion of Worcester to Boston.
So the Cambridge Con Artists are yelling that commuter rail on the Grand Junction is needed for Worcester while really fighting for the institutions / developers and to heck with the environment or rational transportation planning.
This week’s Environmental Monitor has been published by the State. The reviewers find that the Draft Environmental Impact Review for South Coast Rail “adequately and completely complies with MEPA.” The Environmental Monitor is posted at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx.
The poor dears, the poor Cambridge Pols.
Reality has once again trumped their scare tactics.
But the Cambridge Pols regularly do not recognize reality. How much longer will nonsense come from these people that Worcester needs the Grand Junction? And you can’t win, you can’t win, you can’t win, BUT HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.
And their con games for this part of Cambridge already include at least one other very crucial flat out lie.
The Cambridge Pols in their fight for environmental destruction for the benefit of the institutions are fighting for commuter rail on the Grand Junction railroad. They are loudly yelling that everybody else is the bad guy, and have they got a deal for you.
The pols claim this route is needed for Worcester to Boston transportation.
Trouble for the bad guys is Worcester to Boston transportation currently goes to South Station and the South Coast Rail project includes a proposal to expand tracks at South Station.
The proposal for expanding tracks at South Station restores a lot more trackage than is needed for the South Coast Rail. Excess trackage can be used for expansion of Worcester to Boston.
So the Cambridge Con Artists are yelling that commuter rail on the Grand Junction is needed for Worcester while really fighting for the institutions / developers and to heck with the environment or rational transportation planning.
This week’s Environmental Monitor has been published by the State. The reviewers find that the Draft Environmental Impact Review for South Coast Rail “adequately and completely complies with MEPA.” The Environmental Monitor is posted at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx.
The poor dears, the poor Cambridge Pols.
Reality has once again trumped their scare tactics.
But the Cambridge Pols regularly do not recognize reality. How much longer will nonsense come from these people that Worcester needs the Grand Junction? And you can’t win, you can’t win, you can’t win, BUT HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.
And their con games for this part of Cambridge already include at least one other very crucial flat out lie.
Monteiro Case: Argument over Supreme Judicial Court decision
1. Introductory.
2. The Cited Case.
3. Key language in the cited case.
1. Introductory.
I have earlier reported on the appearance of three papers in the Appeals Court case on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This blog report is the latest in a pretty rapid series of reports coming from those papers. Based on the recent nature of those reports, I will not go into detail here on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
Cambridge filed a paper. Monteiro filed a response. The Court said both papers were out of order and not properly filed.
A knowledgeable attorney then provided more detail on the papers and commented that he considered the Appeals Court action indication that the Appeals Court panel had made up its mind.
2. The Cited Case.
The correct citation of the case, taken from the docket is: PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another; DAVID HIRSCH & others, third-party defendants (and a companion case), SJC-10722, 459 Mass. 697
Rescript 5/12/2011 (#24) Lower Court: Middlesex Superior Court, sua sponte transfer from Appeals Court.
The rescript date is the date of publication of the report. 459 Mass. 697 is the place to look in the filing system of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court to find the full case. 459 is the volume number. 697 is the page number.
I have reviewed the case and I have to agree with the knowledgeable attorney on his evaluation of the filings by Cambridge and Monteiro, without even being able to read those filings.
It strikes me as surprising that Cambridge would bother the court with filing a paper saying that this case could be considered supportive of Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. Cambridge.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged retaliation by the filing of a civil action by the employer against the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
The decision supports Monteiro. It says that a retaliation complaint can properly be filed.
3. Key language in the cited case.
I am not going to bother you with who said what and who did what. There are more than one plaintiff and the Court for good reason distinguishes between the two.
I think the key language in the decision is quite adequate. My quote starts on page 710 of the opinion. I have also made all the comments I intend to.
*****************
b. Schive's claim of retaliation.
In reviewing a judge's decision after a jury-waived trial, "we accept the judge's findings of fact as true unless they are clearly erroneous" but "scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts." Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620, 621 (1992). With respect to Schive's claim of retaliation, we conclude that the trial judge applied the proper legal standards to the facts, and that his factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
The judge properly outlined the elements of unlawful conduct under § 4(4). Relying on Sahli, 437 Mass. at 702-704, he identified the dividing line between "[b]aseless" or "sham" litigation, which is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and those "reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuits" that are constitutionally protected and so cannot constitute a violation of § 4(4) or (4A). He correctly pointed out that, while a causal connection must be established between protected conduct and adverse action, that connection may be shown either directly or by inference. Where the link is inferentially shown by closeness in time between an adverse action and the conduct that apparently triggered it, he stated, the triggering conduct need not be the initial filing of the complaint.
The judge ruled that Schive engaged in legally protected conduct by bringing her discrimination claim with the MCAD. He further ruled that the 1999 action [28] was an "adverse employment action" and that it was "baseless, " see Sahli, supra at 702-704, in that all claims against Schive were dismissed "on
Page 711
the grounds that admissible evidence of damages and actionable defamation was lacking." [29] He found Schive demonstrated the necessary causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse action where, in the judge's view, Valenzano testified at trial that he brought the case to "retry" Schive's MCAD claims, [30] and where the "rapid succession" of events in the fall and winter of 1999 also supported an inference of a causal connection between Schive's MCAD case and the complaint her former employer filed. [31] The trial judge concluded by ruling that "Schive
Page 712
has acted reasonably and in good faith in believing she had suffered discrimination, and reasonably responded to that belief by filing a complaint at MCAD." [32] The judge found, "[b]ased on direct and indirect evidence, " that Psy-Ed and Valenzano brought suit "because of her reasonable efforts at MCAD." [33]
c. Klein's claim of retaliation.
As noted in Part 1(c), supra, the motion judge entered summary judgment on Klein's claim for retaliation on the ground that the retaliatory acts he alleged "occurred over two years after the employment relationship between the parties terminated." Because, as we have concluded,
Page 713
a person need not be a current employee to enjoy the protection of § 4(4) and (4A), the entry of summary judgment on Klein's claim must be vacated. [34]
2. The Cited Case.
3. Key language in the cited case.
1. Introductory.
I have earlier reported on the appearance of three papers in the Appeals Court case on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This blog report is the latest in a pretty rapid series of reports coming from those papers. Based on the recent nature of those reports, I will not go into detail here on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
Cambridge filed a paper. Monteiro filed a response. The Court said both papers were out of order and not properly filed.
A knowledgeable attorney then provided more detail on the papers and commented that he considered the Appeals Court action indication that the Appeals Court panel had made up its mind.
2. The Cited Case.
The correct citation of the case, taken from the docket is: PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another; DAVID HIRSCH & others, third-party defendants (and a companion case), SJC-10722, 459 Mass. 697
Rescript 5/12/2011 (#24) Lower Court: Middlesex Superior Court, sua sponte transfer from Appeals Court.
The rescript date is the date of publication of the report. 459 Mass. 697 is the place to look in the filing system of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court to find the full case. 459 is the volume number. 697 is the page number.
I have reviewed the case and I have to agree with the knowledgeable attorney on his evaluation of the filings by Cambridge and Monteiro, without even being able to read those filings.
It strikes me as surprising that Cambridge would bother the court with filing a paper saying that this case could be considered supportive of Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. Cambridge.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged retaliation by the filing of a civil action by the employer against the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
The decision supports Monteiro. It says that a retaliation complaint can properly be filed.
3. Key language in the cited case.
I am not going to bother you with who said what and who did what. There are more than one plaintiff and the Court for good reason distinguishes between the two.
I think the key language in the decision is quite adequate. My quote starts on page 710 of the opinion. I have also made all the comments I intend to.
*****************
b. Schive's claim of retaliation.
In reviewing a judge's decision after a jury-waived trial, "we accept the judge's findings of fact as true unless they are clearly erroneous" but "scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts." Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620, 621 (1992). With respect to Schive's claim of retaliation, we conclude that the trial judge applied the proper legal standards to the facts, and that his factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
The judge properly outlined the elements of unlawful conduct under § 4(4). Relying on Sahli, 437 Mass. at 702-704, he identified the dividing line between "[b]aseless" or "sham" litigation, which is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and those "reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuits" that are constitutionally protected and so cannot constitute a violation of § 4(4) or (4A). He correctly pointed out that, while a causal connection must be established between protected conduct and adverse action, that connection may be shown either directly or by inference. Where the link is inferentially shown by closeness in time between an adverse action and the conduct that apparently triggered it, he stated, the triggering conduct need not be the initial filing of the complaint.
The judge ruled that Schive engaged in legally protected conduct by bringing her discrimination claim with the MCAD. He further ruled that the 1999 action [28] was an "adverse employment action" and that it was "baseless, " see Sahli, supra at 702-704, in that all claims against Schive were dismissed "on
Page 711
the grounds that admissible evidence of damages and actionable defamation was lacking." [29] He found Schive demonstrated the necessary causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse action where, in the judge's view, Valenzano testified at trial that he brought the case to "retry" Schive's MCAD claims, [30] and where the "rapid succession" of events in the fall and winter of 1999 also supported an inference of a causal connection between Schive's MCAD case and the complaint her former employer filed. [31] The trial judge concluded by ruling that "Schive
Page 712
has acted reasonably and in good faith in believing she had suffered discrimination, and reasonably responded to that belief by filing a complaint at MCAD." [32] The judge found, "[b]ased on direct and indirect evidence, " that Psy-Ed and Valenzano brought suit "because of her reasonable efforts at MCAD." [33]
c. Klein's claim of retaliation.
As noted in Part 1(c), supra, the motion judge entered summary judgment on Klein's claim for retaliation on the ground that the retaliatory acts he alleged "occurred over two years after the employment relationship between the parties terminated." Because, as we have concluded,
Page 713
a person need not be a current employee to enjoy the protection of § 4(4) and (4A), the entry of summary judgment on Klein's claim must be vacated. [34]
A trophy for the Charles
1. Archie’s Post.
2. Archie Comments further.
1. Archie’s Post.
Archie Mazmanian has provided the following. I have added paragraphing.
*********
Derrick Z. Jackson's column in the Boston Globe on 7/2/11, available here:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/07/02/a_trophy_for_the_charles/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
titled "A trophy for the Charles - River once again hosts a native fish" was really positive news.
But contrast this wonderful effort to reestablish shad in our beloved Charles that may serve much of the long winding river (subject to working fish ladders) with the plight of the Charles River White Geese, a small gaggle, whose eggs had been sprayed in recent years to prevent hatching and their perpetuation. Cole Porter's "Let's Fall in Love" is a reminder that even shad do it: "think of shad roe."
But Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are hell bent on annihilating the Charles River White Geese in devious ways in their tiny habitat, demonstrating an utter lack of love.
2. Archie Comments further.
The whole point is the contrast regarding nature. Perhaps the shad are welcomed because they are silent although potentially millions in numbers, whereas the CRWG, much, much fewer in number, can still honk. It has been the visibility of the CRWG that attracted us and our children to them in nature. They should not be silenced, nor should we.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Archie Comments further.
1. Archie’s Post.
Archie Mazmanian has provided the following. I have added paragraphing.
*********
Derrick Z. Jackson's column in the Boston Globe on 7/2/11, available here:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/07/02/a_trophy_for_the_charles/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
titled "A trophy for the Charles - River once again hosts a native fish" was really positive news.
But contrast this wonderful effort to reestablish shad in our beloved Charles that may serve much of the long winding river (subject to working fish ladders) with the plight of the Charles River White Geese, a small gaggle, whose eggs had been sprayed in recent years to prevent hatching and their perpetuation. Cole Porter's "Let's Fall in Love" is a reminder that even shad do it: "think of shad roe."
But Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are hell bent on annihilating the Charles River White Geese in devious ways in their tiny habitat, demonstrating an utter lack of love.
2. Archie Comments further.
The whole point is the contrast regarding nature. Perhaps the shad are welcomed because they are silent although potentially millions in numbers, whereas the CRWG, much, much fewer in number, can still honk. It has been the visibility of the CRWG that attracted us and our children to them in nature. They should not be silenced, nor should we.
Archie Mazmanian
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Monteiro: Papers explained by knowledgeable lawyer
On June 29, 2011, I reported on papers (29, 30 and 31) filed in the Appeals Court in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The posting may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/monteiro-machinations-in-superior-court.html.
This is the case in which judge and jury have found the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” (judge’s word, jury’s money) for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for this black female department head filing a civil rights complaint.
My report indicated that I saw the papers, that I did not know what was in them, and that it looked to me like the Appeals Court panel was chastising both sides.
An attorney who has been familiar with the Monteiro case provides the following analysis. Lukey is the attorney for Cambridge. Zucker is Monteiro’s attorney.
I know no more than the below, but I certainly intend to research the case he has cited.
**********
No 29 is Lukey's letter calling the Court's attention to the SJC case of Psy Ed Corp v Klein, decided one week after the oral argument.
No 30 is Zucker's response, demolishing Lukey, pointing out how the Psy Ed case supports Monteiro on all the points of the Appeal, including the Judge's instructions and the propriety of the handling of the retaliation claim.
No 31 tells me the Court has its mind made up.
This is the case in which judge and jury have found the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” (judge’s word, jury’s money) for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for this black female department head filing a civil rights complaint.
My report indicated that I saw the papers, that I did not know what was in them, and that it looked to me like the Appeals Court panel was chastising both sides.
An attorney who has been familiar with the Monteiro case provides the following analysis. Lukey is the attorney for Cambridge. Zucker is Monteiro’s attorney.
I know no more than the below, but I certainly intend to research the case he has cited.
**********
No 29 is Lukey's letter calling the Court's attention to the SJC case of Psy Ed Corp v Klein, decided one week after the oral argument.
No 30 is Zucker's response, demolishing Lukey, pointing out how the Psy Ed case supports Monteiro on all the points of the Appeal, including the Judge's instructions and the propriety of the handling of the retaliation claim.
No 31 tells me the Court has its mind made up.
Photos of Goose Ghetto, Pedestrian Overpass
Update: The link to Roy Bercaw's 2000 video of the goose meadow is: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to provide links to two very valuable reports on his blog. His email reads:
**********
Here are links to images of
1. construction of the new pedestrian bridge over Memorial Drive at Magazine Street., and
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-memorial-drive-pedestrian-bridge-at.html
2. the stubborn geese who demand a court ordered eviction before they leave their historical God-given nesting grounds alongside of the BU Bridge.
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/state-does-not-have-court-order-for.html--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
I strongly appreciate Roy’s input. I previously provided photos of the destruction and devastation which are available on facebook. The update, taken July 2, is strongly appreciated.
He very early on provided a video report to which we have posted a link on this blog. That was during the first few months of this outrage. It concludes with a photo of a White Goose flying very high. I will amend this report later to add a direct link.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
Phil Barber previously provided photos of the trees which were destroyed for this project. It is another Department of Conservation and Recreation project taken over by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
As part of the corrupt way of doing business we have become accustomed to from the DCR, this destruction and total rebuilding was publicized by the flat out lie, “repair.” Thus the people we are forced to deal with prevented objections.
I have heard no exact numbers. My educated guess is that the bridge is being raised to accommodate trucks from the Massachusetts Turnpike which will allow the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge and through the goose meadow to be converted to an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to provide links to two very valuable reports on his blog. His email reads:
**********
Here are links to images of
1. construction of the new pedestrian bridge over Memorial Drive at Magazine Street., and
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-memorial-drive-pedestrian-bridge-at.html
2. the stubborn geese who demand a court ordered eviction before they leave their historical God-given nesting grounds alongside of the BU Bridge.
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/state-does-not-have-court-order-for.html--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
I strongly appreciate Roy’s input. I previously provided photos of the destruction and devastation which are available on facebook. The update, taken July 2, is strongly appreciated.
He very early on provided a video report to which we have posted a link on this blog. That was during the first few months of this outrage. It concludes with a photo of a White Goose flying very high. I will amend this report later to add a direct link.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
Phil Barber previously provided photos of the trees which were destroyed for this project. It is another Department of Conservation and Recreation project taken over by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
As part of the corrupt way of doing business we have become accustomed to from the DCR, this destruction and total rebuilding was publicized by the flat out lie, “repair.” Thus the people we are forced to deal with prevented objections.
I have heard no exact numbers. My educated guess is that the bridge is being raised to accommodate trucks from the Massachusetts Turnpike which will allow the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge and through the goose meadow to be converted to an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
“Opposition” on the Grand Junction passenger service. — “Lie” versus “nonsense.”
1. Report on Alewife.
2. Claims of independence.
3. The Grand Junction plans.
1. Report on Alewife.
In my latest report on Alewife, I used the word “lies” about Cambridge activists repeating communications on development issues. I have distress using the term and I changed it from “lies” to “nonsense” in my facebook page passing on the report.
The trouble is that “lies” is extremely accurate concerning too high a percentage of communications on zoning and other environmental issues. Sophisticated versions of lies are too often normal on development issues in Cambridge, MA.
2. Claims of independence.
Similarly, what is an organization which claims to be one thing but which functions to fulfill the goals of the powers that be?
Is it a “neighborhood association” or an “environmental group” or is it really a front organization through which the city manager / city council fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do? Or keep well intended people from opposing matters they normally would oppose?
And is the use of the term “neighborhood association” or “environmental group” by these groups a lie?
And is this well established pattern in Cambridge simply corruption?
3. The Grand Junction plans.
What brings this up is a communication received by the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport. The communication concerned the Grand Junction railroad and possible use of it in Cambridge for passenger service. A city councilor sent the following email to the group’s listserve:
*********
I just wanted to quickly weigh in – I was at the meeting at the Morse school and am very concerned about the plan. I think [ed: name omitted] said it very well below so I’ll just echo sentiments. I wasn’t here a few years ago, this term the Council did vote on a resolution expressing our serious concern about the impact this would have on the neighborhood, traffic, etc.
********
I also was at that vote. My interpretation was that the only member of the city council for whom I have some possible respect on that vote is Toomey.
The reality is that a lot of councillors looked like they were lying through false definition [another sophisticated technique of lying].
The reality is that a lot of councilors look like they support the proposal WITH CHANGES DETRIMENTAL to Cambridge. That is not opposition. That is support with changes, and claims of opposition are, in reality, lying.
The reality is that the Cambridge machine looks like it is taking orders and working for support with changes while lying to the victims that the victims are standing up to an external but powerful enemy.
The enemy on the Grand Junction looks very strongly like the City of Cambridge / the Cambridge City Council, and the Cambridge pol campaign “against” looks like the usual lie.
2. Claims of independence.
3. The Grand Junction plans.
1. Report on Alewife.
In my latest report on Alewife, I used the word “lies” about Cambridge activists repeating communications on development issues. I have distress using the term and I changed it from “lies” to “nonsense” in my facebook page passing on the report.
The trouble is that “lies” is extremely accurate concerning too high a percentage of communications on zoning and other environmental issues. Sophisticated versions of lies are too often normal on development issues in Cambridge, MA.
2. Claims of independence.
Similarly, what is an organization which claims to be one thing but which functions to fulfill the goals of the powers that be?
Is it a “neighborhood association” or an “environmental group” or is it really a front organization through which the city manager / city council fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do? Or keep well intended people from opposing matters they normally would oppose?
And is the use of the term “neighborhood association” or “environmental group” by these groups a lie?
And is this well established pattern in Cambridge simply corruption?
3. The Grand Junction plans.
What brings this up is a communication received by the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport. The communication concerned the Grand Junction railroad and possible use of it in Cambridge for passenger service. A city councilor sent the following email to the group’s listserve:
*********
I just wanted to quickly weigh in – I was at the meeting at the Morse school and am very concerned about the plan. I think [ed: name omitted] said it very well below so I’ll just echo sentiments. I wasn’t here a few years ago, this term the Council did vote on a resolution expressing our serious concern about the impact this would have on the neighborhood, traffic, etc.
********
I also was at that vote. My interpretation was that the only member of the city council for whom I have some possible respect on that vote is Toomey.
The reality is that a lot of councillors looked like they were lying through false definition [another sophisticated technique of lying].
The reality is that a lot of councilors look like they support the proposal WITH CHANGES DETRIMENTAL to Cambridge. That is not opposition. That is support with changes, and claims of opposition are, in reality, lying.
The reality is that the Cambridge machine looks like it is taking orders and working for support with changes while lying to the victims that the victims are standing up to an external but powerful enemy.
The enemy on the Grand Junction looks very strongly like the City of Cambridge / the Cambridge City Council, and the Cambridge pol campaign “against” looks like the usual lie.
Friday, July 01, 2011
The Reality at Alewife
1. The Bad Guys Speak.
2. My research.
A. General.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
3. Translation.
1. The Bad Guys Speak.
The Alewife reservation is the last essentially untouched wilderness in the City of Cambridge. It is across the street from Alewife Station on the Red Line rapid transit. So naturally, the powers that be being the powers that be, they are determined to destroy it. After all they have a massive organization in place to lie to people.
One of the key people in the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport has been speaking out concerning Alewife.
The bad guys love to confuse things.
Her solution for the forthcoming destruction of Alewife is to control invasives. And she is very indignant that invasives MUST be controlled.
2. My research.
A. General.
I have kept as close to the planning as is possible. I have been familiar with the plans for more than 15 years. I tried to organize but I was outdone by the Cambridge Pols with their fake protective group backed by a very massive citywide organization which passes on whatever lie the City is putting out this week.
June 30, 2011, I walked the ground at Alewife for the first time since I saw the destruction’s start standing next to the leader of the fake organization which has been “defending” Alewife by telling people to look at everything other than the important stuff.
I went into the reservation on a temporary bike path. I observed signage and existing destruction.
I did research on the city’s website.
The key documents seem to be posted at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/cityprojects/detail.aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2ftheworks%2fcityprojects%2f2011%2fcambridgeparkdrivewetlands.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
The following is copied directly from the city’s website. I doubt that the link to YouTube will carry, but the above link will get you to this document and the rest:
*********
The Cambridge Department of Public Works in conjunction with NSTAR Electric, NSTAR Gas, and AT&T, began utility relocation work in the Alewife Reservation on Tuesday May 3, 2011 in advance of the start of the stormwater wetland construction. The utility work will relocate utilities beneath a portion of the Alewife Reservation and Little River to Acorn Park Drive through a process called Pilot Tube Auger Boring (PTAB). PTAB is a trenchless technology method designed to minimize disturbance in the Alewife Reservation and Little River by tunneling under the Little River. For a demonstration of PTAB please see the following video on You Tube.
The utility relocation work will include a cleared and fenced in utility relocation zone approximately 150 feet by 120 feet and a laydown area approximately 120 feet by 100 feet in the Alewife Reservation for equipment and materials and excavation of a drilling pit. Open trenching of the underground utilities will be performed from the staging area south to the connection points to existing utilities adjacent to the existing bike path. This work is expected to be completed by the end of July 2011 to allow the utilities to make connections to their existing systems.
This utility relocation work is in preparation for the start of the stormwater wetlands construction anticipated to begin in October 2011.
3. Translation.
The Stormwater Wetlands Construction is the storage system which will destroy the Alewife reservation.
A responsible city government would be placing that drainage under a massive parking lot just north of the main city Commuter Rail track. This parking lot is separated from the soon to be destroyed Alewife reservation by a city street and by a private lot one office building deep. They are within view of each other.
The owner of the parking lot has plans to build on it. Delay means making the certainty of destruction of Alewife that much more firm.
The current work is destructive but the very massive destruction will start the day after the fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council are put to the vote in the City Elections.
One of Cambridge’s really rotten traditions is that the really dirty work starts the day after the City Elections.
So the incumbents can lie about which side they are on. Then the truth comes out after it is too late.
2. My research.
A. General.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
3. Translation.
1. The Bad Guys Speak.
The Alewife reservation is the last essentially untouched wilderness in the City of Cambridge. It is across the street from Alewife Station on the Red Line rapid transit. So naturally, the powers that be being the powers that be, they are determined to destroy it. After all they have a massive organization in place to lie to people.
One of the key people in the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport has been speaking out concerning Alewife.
The bad guys love to confuse things.
Her solution for the forthcoming destruction of Alewife is to control invasives. And she is very indignant that invasives MUST be controlled.
2. My research.
A. General.
I have kept as close to the planning as is possible. I have been familiar with the plans for more than 15 years. I tried to organize but I was outdone by the Cambridge Pols with their fake protective group backed by a very massive citywide organization which passes on whatever lie the City is putting out this week.
June 30, 2011, I walked the ground at Alewife for the first time since I saw the destruction’s start standing next to the leader of the fake organization which has been “defending” Alewife by telling people to look at everything other than the important stuff.
I went into the reservation on a temporary bike path. I observed signage and existing destruction.
I did research on the city’s website.
The key documents seem to be posted at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/cityprojects/detail.aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2ftheworks%2fcityprojects%2f2011%2fcambridgeparkdrivewetlands.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
The following is copied directly from the city’s website. I doubt that the link to YouTube will carry, but the above link will get you to this document and the rest:
*********
The Cambridge Department of Public Works in conjunction with NSTAR Electric, NSTAR Gas, and AT&T, began utility relocation work in the Alewife Reservation on Tuesday May 3, 2011 in advance of the start of the stormwater wetland construction. The utility work will relocate utilities beneath a portion of the Alewife Reservation and Little River to Acorn Park Drive through a process called Pilot Tube Auger Boring (PTAB). PTAB is a trenchless technology method designed to minimize disturbance in the Alewife Reservation and Little River by tunneling under the Little River. For a demonstration of PTAB please see the following video on You Tube.
The utility relocation work will include a cleared and fenced in utility relocation zone approximately 150 feet by 120 feet and a laydown area approximately 120 feet by 100 feet in the Alewife Reservation for equipment and materials and excavation of a drilling pit. Open trenching of the underground utilities will be performed from the staging area south to the connection points to existing utilities adjacent to the existing bike path. This work is expected to be completed by the end of July 2011 to allow the utilities to make connections to their existing systems.
This utility relocation work is in preparation for the start of the stormwater wetlands construction anticipated to begin in October 2011.
3. Translation.
The Stormwater Wetlands Construction is the storage system which will destroy the Alewife reservation.
A responsible city government would be placing that drainage under a massive parking lot just north of the main city Commuter Rail track. This parking lot is separated from the soon to be destroyed Alewife reservation by a city street and by a private lot one office building deep. They are within view of each other.
The owner of the parking lot has plans to build on it. Delay means making the certainty of destruction of Alewife that much more firm.
The current work is destructive but the very massive destruction will start the day after the fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council are put to the vote in the City Elections.
One of Cambridge’s really rotten traditions is that the really dirty work starts the day after the City Elections.
So the incumbents can lie about which side they are on. Then the truth comes out after it is too late.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Apparent waste in latest Cambridge Library / High School project?
1. Background.
2. The latest construction.
3. A little more background.
1. Background.
My initial exposure to the very real dark side of Cambridge, MA “environmentalism” was when the city needlessly destroyed something like 23 one hundred year plus old trees when Cambridge rearranged the city High School.
The construction could very easily have gone elsewhere on the site. The alternate location was designated as blood money. People on Broadway got paid off for supporting needless destruction on Cambridge Street.
It was obvious landbanking. The fully predictable stab in the back to the back stabbers on Broadway came in the rearrangement of the city’s public library. This “improvement” reduced the shelf space of the public library. It also took away a significant part of the Judas coins given to Broadway.
The Library rearrangement destroyed much of the essentially unimproved grass put in where the High School building should have gone. This unimproved grass was called a “replacement” for the hundred year old trees. The library rearrangement also destroyed 50 or so trees which were planted as saplings and advertised as other blood money in the needless destruction of those hundred year old trees.
Very prominent in the destruction was a “neighborhood association” created in coordination with the Cambridge City Manager. Need I say more?
2. The latest construction.
Roy Bercaw, at http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-at-first-you-don’t-succeed-don’t-kill.html, reports on apparently rather blatant waste in the latest rearrangement of the Public Library / High School site.
He provides photos.
3. A little more background.
I got a preliminary injunction on appeal against the destruction of the park containing those hundred year old trees.
Such an order is next to impossible on appeal. It indicated a very strong case.
In the middle of the case, the state Supreme Judicial Court came down with a decision ignoring a key distinction in trust law. The error was dicta but exactly on point. The error was corrected ten years later.
In the meantime, I had lost a key part of my case. I needed to win on a statute protecting parks. The judge made a finding of fact that this excellent park was not a park but Library grounds. He authorized the destruction on Cambridge Street praising all the saplings being planted on Broadway.
2. The latest construction.
3. A little more background.
1. Background.
My initial exposure to the very real dark side of Cambridge, MA “environmentalism” was when the city needlessly destroyed something like 23 one hundred year plus old trees when Cambridge rearranged the city High School.
The construction could very easily have gone elsewhere on the site. The alternate location was designated as blood money. People on Broadway got paid off for supporting needless destruction on Cambridge Street.
It was obvious landbanking. The fully predictable stab in the back to the back stabbers on Broadway came in the rearrangement of the city’s public library. This “improvement” reduced the shelf space of the public library. It also took away a significant part of the Judas coins given to Broadway.
The Library rearrangement destroyed much of the essentially unimproved grass put in where the High School building should have gone. This unimproved grass was called a “replacement” for the hundred year old trees. The library rearrangement also destroyed 50 or so trees which were planted as saplings and advertised as other blood money in the needless destruction of those hundred year old trees.
Very prominent in the destruction was a “neighborhood association” created in coordination with the Cambridge City Manager. Need I say more?
2. The latest construction.
Roy Bercaw, at http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-at-first-you-don’t-succeed-don’t-kill.html, reports on apparently rather blatant waste in the latest rearrangement of the Public Library / High School site.
He provides photos.
3. A little more background.
I got a preliminary injunction on appeal against the destruction of the park containing those hundred year old trees.
Such an order is next to impossible on appeal. It indicated a very strong case.
In the middle of the case, the state Supreme Judicial Court came down with a decision ignoring a key distinction in trust law. The error was dicta but exactly on point. The error was corrected ten years later.
In the meantime, I had lost a key part of my case. I needed to win on a statute protecting parks. The judge made a finding of fact that this excellent park was not a park but Library grounds. He authorized the destruction on Cambridge Street praising all the saplings being planted on Broadway.
Monteiro: Machinations in Superior Court? Final pre-trial hearing for last two plaintiffs rescheduled again
1. General Introduction.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
1. General Introduction.
I do not consider the outrageous environmental destruction being inflicted by the City of Cambridge with the very clear unanimous support of the Cambridge City Council at all unrelated to other aspects of Cambridge City Government.
There is a stench about this government hidden by a massive machine which runs around passing on a lot of lying.
The big issue, to my mind, is just how rotten the situation is. It is very difficult to evaluate the situation when you are as close as I am even though I know a very significant part of just how bad things are by looking at the environmental situation and those portions of the civil rights situation which are not hidden.
The reality is that the large number of people running around passing around lies about reality do not do such behavior in a vacuum. The reality certainly is that a very significant portion of the people spouting the lies do not know what they are talking about. They are just passing on what they are told are their opinions. Nevertheless, as tiny as the number of people really doing the thinking may be, they clearly have a lot of people passing on as reality a whole bunch of false statements.
Then again, people do not usually behave this badly in a vacuum.
Cambridge looks like a house of cards.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
The Monteiro case originally had five plaintiffs. Two settled and, I understand, got pretty big payments.
Malvina Monteiro went to trial. She then was retried on the retaliation issue which she won impressively. That case is now in Appeals Court.
Papers, to my knowledge, have been filed informing appropriate courts that the last two plaintiffs still have yet to be tried.
Most recently, there have been stirrings in Superior Court about going forward toward trial with the last two plaintiffs. The final pre-trial hearing to set matters in place to go forward has now been rescheduled a few times. The last change I had been aware of was to July 12, 2011 at the Woburn, MA courthouse for the Middlesex County Superior Court. This change was apparently by agreement of the parties.
The docket shows another delay, to August 10, 2011, at 2 pm, rescheduling by the Court.
Whether this had anything to do with the latest exchange in Appeals Court is beyond me. All I am looking at, in each case, is the on line docket.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
1. General Introduction.
I do not consider the outrageous environmental destruction being inflicted by the City of Cambridge with the very clear unanimous support of the Cambridge City Council at all unrelated to other aspects of Cambridge City Government.
There is a stench about this government hidden by a massive machine which runs around passing on a lot of lying.
The big issue, to my mind, is just how rotten the situation is. It is very difficult to evaluate the situation when you are as close as I am even though I know a very significant part of just how bad things are by looking at the environmental situation and those portions of the civil rights situation which are not hidden.
The reality is that the large number of people running around passing around lies about reality do not do such behavior in a vacuum. The reality certainly is that a very significant portion of the people spouting the lies do not know what they are talking about. They are just passing on what they are told are their opinions. Nevertheless, as tiny as the number of people really doing the thinking may be, they clearly have a lot of people passing on as reality a whole bunch of false statements.
Then again, people do not usually behave this badly in a vacuum.
Cambridge looks like a house of cards.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
The Monteiro case originally had five plaintiffs. Two settled and, I understand, got pretty big payments.
Malvina Monteiro went to trial. She then was retried on the retaliation issue which she won impressively. That case is now in Appeals Court.
Papers, to my knowledge, have been filed informing appropriate courts that the last two plaintiffs still have yet to be tried.
Most recently, there have been stirrings in Superior Court about going forward toward trial with the last two plaintiffs. The final pre-trial hearing to set matters in place to go forward has now been rescheduled a few times. The last change I had been aware of was to July 12, 2011 at the Woburn, MA courthouse for the Middlesex County Superior Court. This change was apparently by agreement of the parties.
The docket shows another delay, to August 10, 2011, at 2 pm, rescheduling by the Court.
Whether this had anything to do with the latest exchange in Appeals Court is beyond me. All I am looking at, in each case, is the on line docket.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Appeals Court chastises both Sides in Monteiro v. Cambridge case
1. Court papers.
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
B. This Decision.
1. Court papers.
The following notations are the most recent on the Appeals Court Docket in Monteiro v. Cambridge. They are copied directly from the Appeals Court Docket. Paragraphing is added for clarification of presentation and to more closely communicate the docket which is a table with three columns. So, instead of providing columns, I provide paragraphing.
In each instance, the date is the date of posting, the number is the number of the formal entry in the docket. Then follows the description
******
05/16/2011
#29
Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by City of Cambridge.@
06/08/2011
#30
Response to paper #29, filed by Malvina Monteiro, Mary Chui Wong, & Linda Stamper. *@
06/24/2011
#31
ORDER: The office of the Clerk has received letters from counsel for appellant City of Cambridge dated May 16, 2011, and from counsel for appellee Monteiro dated June 7, 2011. Both letters purport to be submissions pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(l). Neither letter complies with the letter or purpose of the rule; both constitute an unauthorized additional stage of repetitive argument. The court will not accept or consider the letters. (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.)
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
I have been following the civil rights case of Monteiro v. Cambridge on this blog for a number of reasons.
One very big reason is the judge’s calling the City Manager “reprehensible” and apparently proving it. This civil rights judge’s analysis certainly fits a reasonable analysis of the environmental situation on the Charles River.
If the Superior Court decision stands, the Cambridge City Council will be forced into a position where it really should fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Firing the Cambridge City could have major impact on the environmental corruption which is business as usual in the City of Cambridge, including the attacks on the Charles River.
B. This Decision.
One or both sides tried to do something.
All I have is the docket. I do not have the papers, although the order is probably completely posted.
This sort of exchange occurred a number of times in Superior Court with the judge being quite considerate in acknowledging and responding to comments.
Whatever one or both sides tried to do, the Appeals Court is much less gentle than the Superior Court judge.
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
B. This Decision.
1. Court papers.
The following notations are the most recent on the Appeals Court Docket in Monteiro v. Cambridge. They are copied directly from the Appeals Court Docket. Paragraphing is added for clarification of presentation and to more closely communicate the docket which is a table with three columns. So, instead of providing columns, I provide paragraphing.
In each instance, the date is the date of posting, the number is the number of the formal entry in the docket. Then follows the description
******
05/16/2011
#29
Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by City of Cambridge.@
06/08/2011
#30
Response to paper #29, filed by Malvina Monteiro, Mary Chui Wong, & Linda Stamper. *@
06/24/2011
#31
ORDER: The office of the Clerk has received letters from counsel for appellant City of Cambridge dated May 16, 2011, and from counsel for appellee Monteiro dated June 7, 2011. Both letters purport to be submissions pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(l). Neither letter complies with the letter or purpose of the rule; both constitute an unauthorized additional stage of repetitive argument. The court will not accept or consider the letters. (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.)
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
I have been following the civil rights case of Monteiro v. Cambridge on this blog for a number of reasons.
One very big reason is the judge’s calling the City Manager “reprehensible” and apparently proving it. This civil rights judge’s analysis certainly fits a reasonable analysis of the environmental situation on the Charles River.
If the Superior Court decision stands, the Cambridge City Council will be forced into a position where it really should fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Firing the Cambridge City could have major impact on the environmental corruption which is business as usual in the City of Cambridge, including the attacks on the Charles River.
B. This Decision.
One or both sides tried to do something.
All I have is the docket. I do not have the papers, although the order is probably completely posted.
This sort of exchange occurred a number of times in Superior Court with the judge being quite considerate in acknowledging and responding to comments.
Whatever one or both sides tried to do, the Appeals Court is much less gentle than the Superior Court judge.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Cambridge Pols respond concerning environmental destruction of Charles and Alewife
I have provided you with my letter published in the June 16, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle concerning the celebration of the Cambridge pols of the environmental destruction on the Charles almost immediately after they succeeded in starting destruction of the core Alewife Reservation. It is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/environmental-destruction-celebration.html.
Thursday, June 23, 2011, the Cambridge pols published their response. It got exactly the same visibility as my letter and may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x539090444/Letter-Why-are-healthy-trees-cut-in-Cambridge#axzz1QIeEV0B2.
The writer has created a typically falsely named Cambridge group, the Cambridge Tree Stewards. That, as usual, gives a highly false impression of what she stands for. She looks like an integral part of the Cambridge Pols. She was part of the con game at Alewife, running around yelling about privately owned, peripheral property and, by omission, telling people to ignore the import stuff.
This letter responds to the totally unnecessary destruction of the Core Part of the Alewife reservation by her friends with the usual propaganda:
Don’t look at the important stuff my friends are needlessly destroying on public owned land, which could easily have been prevented. We are running a long shot fight: standing up to private property owners in a far less crucial location.
So she supports the public destruction of the core reservation by omission and yells that she is standing up to peripheral damage by private property owners.
Her response to the Cambridge Pols’ celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles is worse. She loudly proclaims intention to save street trees which her friends do not want to destroy. She neglects to mention that her secret definition of street trees exempts and thus supports the destruction of hundreds of street trees on Memorial Drive.
So she, and her falsely named “Tree Stewards” organization support by omission the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River, the walling off of Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of bushes, and the heartless, needless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
She just neglects to mention what she supports.
Oh, yeh, the current “concern” for street trees started one week after the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy a densely wooded piece of property for another DCR highway project. They voted to exempt the destruction from public meeting requirements, to keep it as secret as possible. The Chronicle caught them. So a week later, we started seeing yelling about street trees with the key secret definition.
More pious lies about environmental concerns.
This is business as usual in the City of Cambridge. Look at my lovely words. Do not look at my very terrible actions which prove my lovely words lies.
This is corruption.
This is Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thursday, June 23, 2011, the Cambridge pols published their response. It got exactly the same visibility as my letter and may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x539090444/Letter-Why-are-healthy-trees-cut-in-Cambridge#axzz1QIeEV0B2.
The writer has created a typically falsely named Cambridge group, the Cambridge Tree Stewards. That, as usual, gives a highly false impression of what she stands for. She looks like an integral part of the Cambridge Pols. She was part of the con game at Alewife, running around yelling about privately owned, peripheral property and, by omission, telling people to ignore the import stuff.
This letter responds to the totally unnecessary destruction of the Core Part of the Alewife reservation by her friends with the usual propaganda:
Don’t look at the important stuff my friends are needlessly destroying on public owned land, which could easily have been prevented. We are running a long shot fight: standing up to private property owners in a far less crucial location.
So she supports the public destruction of the core reservation by omission and yells that she is standing up to peripheral damage by private property owners.
Her response to the Cambridge Pols’ celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles is worse. She loudly proclaims intention to save street trees which her friends do not want to destroy. She neglects to mention that her secret definition of street trees exempts and thus supports the destruction of hundreds of street trees on Memorial Drive.
So she, and her falsely named “Tree Stewards” organization support by omission the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River, the walling off of Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of bushes, and the heartless, needless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
She just neglects to mention what she supports.
Oh, yeh, the current “concern” for street trees started one week after the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy a densely wooded piece of property for another DCR highway project. They voted to exempt the destruction from public meeting requirements, to keep it as secret as possible. The Chronicle caught them. So a week later, we started seeing yelling about street trees with the key secret definition.
More pious lies about environmental concerns.
This is business as usual in the City of Cambridge. Look at my lovely words. Do not look at my very terrible actions which prove my lovely words lies.
This is corruption.
This is Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Grand Junction slides available
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has provided me with their slides from their presentation on June 16, 2011 concerning possible passenger use on the Grand Junction.
The slides are quite good and informative. They provide more detail than I was able to include in my report. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out a way to upload them.
Please send me an email at boblat@yahoo.com, and I will be pleased to provide the slides to you. They run slightly under 799,000 KB.
The slides are quite good and informative. They provide more detail than I was able to include in my report. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out a way to upload them.
Please send me an email at boblat@yahoo.com, and I will be pleased to provide the slides to you. They run slightly under 799,000 KB.
The Cambridge Machine extends Cambridge corruption to the regional level
1. Cambridge Corruption goes regional.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
1. Cambridge Corruption goes regional.
I define corruption as dishonesty in fact.
The corrupt environmental situation in Cambridge, MA, was bad enough but it clearly now has regional environmental impacts.
The Charles River is being destroyed but it is not beyond reclamation.
Alewife is being destroyed. Each of those major, excellent trees is irreplaceable, and there must be easily be thousands of them. Strictly a wild guess, but when the Cambridge City Manager started his destruction of the Fresh Pond reservation, he bragged of planting a thousand saplings which would translate into destruction of thousands to make room for the saplings. Alewife is bigger than the northern portion of Fresh Pond which Cambridge has been destroying.
The corruption of Cambridge is highly scary because the game is to infiltrate and control. The situation is such that it is impossible to distinguish between knaves and fools.
There is a woman who spent 15 years “defending” Alewife and succeeded in destroying the core part of Alewife, highly savable, while continuing to tilt at windmills on less important stuff. She is almost certainly a fool and not a knave. This is one tactic of the Cambridge machine. Keep them out of trouble chasing the other stuff.
But the way the machine is destroying Alewife shows just how tiny the number of people really pulling the strings need be.
It gets scarier to remember a key Boston Sierra Club member at the Grand Junction meeting, and realize the situation in the Sierra Club.
Last I recall, this guy was strongly supportive of cyberabuse as part of a supposed transportation organization. Cyberabuse was the tactic the knaves used to prevent meaningful discussion of the Urban Ring. The knaves fooled the key people in the group into taking a position which simply could not be justified from a transportation point of view. The minute reality was discussed, cyberabuse was used to bring discussions to a halt.
And this key Sierra Club person clearly supported the cyberabuse. His support of cyberabuse continues because the knaves are still present in that group and the victim was thrown out because the victim objected to being cyberabused.
Last I heard, the Sierra Club was pushing the flat out lie (originating from Cambridge of course, major participation) that there is only one option in the Urban Ring heavy rail proposal, the silly and environmentally destructive streetcar proposal. The Cambridge pols flatly and simply lie that the responsible Orange Line option does not exist. That lie certainly looks like it is being spouted by the Boston Sierra Club.
There is a lot of lying coming out of Cambridge.
What is a lie? Spouting flat out falsehoods can be a lie in either of two ways.
First, you can know the falsehood is a lie and spout it. Secondly, by spouting the falsehood, you claim you know what you are talking about. So either you know it is a falsehood and are lying or you claim to know what you are talking about and are lying about that. Either way, you are lying and are part of corruption which has spread from Cambridge and is now in the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmental destroyers for City Council in Cambridge. The corruption in Cambridge controls the liberal arm of Cambridge politics. Very visible in the Sierra Club are people who look like part of the Cambridge corruption. The Cambridge corruption looks like it controls the Boston Sierra Club insofar as it needs support for its environmental destruction.
If you want to discuss corruption in the Sierra Club, just ask that guy in the key position in the Sierra Club what two practitioners of cyberabuse are doing in key positions in that transportation group, and why he supports cyberabuse.
You might also ask him what destroyers of the Charles River, Fresh Pond and Alewife are doing being endorsed by the Sierra Club, or better yet, what these endorsements say about the Boston Sierra Club.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
This is the 600th edition of this blog.
The blog started in 2004. It is a spinoff of an email newsletter which exceeded 400 issues and, at one point, reached 1,300 recipients.
In March 2000, I started putting out reports on the situation at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The reports went out over a phone connection by Yahoo! The accumulation of multiple reports took more time than the distribution. Hours were spent on each report, and the reports went out daily or more often for quite awhile.
Yahoo! made things quite a bit more difficult for that type of procedure.
By 2004, it was taking four days to send out each report.
That was unsustainable.
So, we have now reached 600 postings here, and a total or more than 1000 reports since March 2000.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
1. Cambridge Corruption goes regional.
I define corruption as dishonesty in fact.
The corrupt environmental situation in Cambridge, MA, was bad enough but it clearly now has regional environmental impacts.
The Charles River is being destroyed but it is not beyond reclamation.
Alewife is being destroyed. Each of those major, excellent trees is irreplaceable, and there must be easily be thousands of them. Strictly a wild guess, but when the Cambridge City Manager started his destruction of the Fresh Pond reservation, he bragged of planting a thousand saplings which would translate into destruction of thousands to make room for the saplings. Alewife is bigger than the northern portion of Fresh Pond which Cambridge has been destroying.
The corruption of Cambridge is highly scary because the game is to infiltrate and control. The situation is such that it is impossible to distinguish between knaves and fools.
There is a woman who spent 15 years “defending” Alewife and succeeded in destroying the core part of Alewife, highly savable, while continuing to tilt at windmills on less important stuff. She is almost certainly a fool and not a knave. This is one tactic of the Cambridge machine. Keep them out of trouble chasing the other stuff.
But the way the machine is destroying Alewife shows just how tiny the number of people really pulling the strings need be.
It gets scarier to remember a key Boston Sierra Club member at the Grand Junction meeting, and realize the situation in the Sierra Club.
Last I recall, this guy was strongly supportive of cyberabuse as part of a supposed transportation organization. Cyberabuse was the tactic the knaves used to prevent meaningful discussion of the Urban Ring. The knaves fooled the key people in the group into taking a position which simply could not be justified from a transportation point of view. The minute reality was discussed, cyberabuse was used to bring discussions to a halt.
And this key Sierra Club person clearly supported the cyberabuse. His support of cyberabuse continues because the knaves are still present in that group and the victim was thrown out because the victim objected to being cyberabused.
Last I heard, the Sierra Club was pushing the flat out lie (originating from Cambridge of course, major participation) that there is only one option in the Urban Ring heavy rail proposal, the silly and environmentally destructive streetcar proposal. The Cambridge pols flatly and simply lie that the responsible Orange Line option does not exist. That lie certainly looks like it is being spouted by the Boston Sierra Club.
There is a lot of lying coming out of Cambridge.
What is a lie? Spouting flat out falsehoods can be a lie in either of two ways.
First, you can know the falsehood is a lie and spout it. Secondly, by spouting the falsehood, you claim you know what you are talking about. So either you know it is a falsehood and are lying or you claim to know what you are talking about and are lying about that. Either way, you are lying and are part of corruption which has spread from Cambridge and is now in the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmental destroyers for City Council in Cambridge. The corruption in Cambridge controls the liberal arm of Cambridge politics. Very visible in the Sierra Club are people who look like part of the Cambridge corruption. The Cambridge corruption looks like it controls the Boston Sierra Club insofar as it needs support for its environmental destruction.
If you want to discuss corruption in the Sierra Club, just ask that guy in the key position in the Sierra Club what two practitioners of cyberabuse are doing in key positions in that transportation group, and why he supports cyberabuse.
You might also ask him what destroyers of the Charles River, Fresh Pond and Alewife are doing being endorsed by the Sierra Club, or better yet, what these endorsements say about the Boston Sierra Club.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
This is the 600th edition of this blog.
The blog started in 2004. It is a spinoff of an email newsletter which exceeded 400 issues and, at one point, reached 1,300 recipients.
In March 2000, I started putting out reports on the situation at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The reports went out over a phone connection by Yahoo! The accumulation of multiple reports took more time than the distribution. Hours were spent on each report, and the reports went out daily or more often for quite awhile.
Yahoo! made things quite a bit more difficult for that type of procedure.
By 2004, it was taking four days to send out each report.
That was unsustainable.
So, we have now reached 600 postings here, and a total or more than 1000 reports since March 2000.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Mass. Dept. of Transportation meeting on Grand Junction passenger rail, June 16, 2011
1. Introductory.
2. Difference?
3. Numbers.
4. Current Daily Use.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
(3) Streetcars.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
(1) MassDOT.
(2) Cambridge.
(3) Your Editor.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
6. Summary.
7. Media Coverage.
1. Introductory.
There was a good crowd at the auditorium of the Morse School the evening of June 16, 2001.
The first thing to catch the eye was a flier on the front door of Morse School advertising the Cambridge Pols’ fraudulent “celebration” of Magazine Beach on which I have reported. My response to this con game was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle the same day and has seen links by the Boston Globe on line.
The issue is MassDOT’s consideration of passenger commuter use of the Grand Junction railroad running from the Beacon Yards in Allston to North Station in Boston for trains running between Framingham/Worcester and Boston. The Grand Junction railroad includes the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. It goes directly through the tiny part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not been destroyed for them.
As usual, the Cambridge Pols are running around blaming everybody else for attacking Cambridge and claiming to be saving people. The reality appears to be that key Cambridge Pols are the strongest entity fighting for this nonsense. They are playing their usual con game, trying to fool concerned people into stabbing themselves in the back while claiming to be their friends.
The proposal is silly. The state’s figures indicate a possible for an increase in round trips in the next 25 years from 21 per day now to 30 per day then.
2. Difference?
A big difference from the prior presentation was that the presenters were a lot more positive a few months ago that South Station, the current terminus, is being greatly expanded as a result of the South Coast (Fall River and New Bedford) passenger service resumption. This would be done by moving the South Postal annex to a location further in the South Boston waterfront area, tearing it down, and putting in trackage that was destroyed 50 or 60 years ago before the building was constructed. The additional trackage would leave plenty of room for Worcester expansion of service.
When I pointed out the change, the speakers suddenly got more positive about the possibility of South Station expansion.
3. Numbers.
There is a small fraction of the current passengers who are going to the North Station area by their studies (8%) or to the Cambridge Kendall Square area (5%). To service these passengers, the state is considering instituting passenger service which would interfere with traffic on 6 roadways in Cambridge, crossing at grade, and add to the environmental destruction Cambridge and other Cambridge friends are inflicting on the Charles River.
No tracks would be added to the Grand Junction railroad. Train speed would vary from 15 to 30 miles per hour.
The route would clearly be greatly inferior to the current route and would use a transportation technique, at grade crossings with drop down gates, which went out of favor more than 50 years ago, at least in densely developed communities.
However, key Cambridge Pols want to help Cambridge industrial developers and they are trying to scare the public into savaging themselves.
4. Current Daily Use.
Current daily use of the Grand Junction is as follows:
One scheduled freight.
MBTA moves to their repair shops.
Amtrak moves of cars from service on their Downeaster trains to their Northeast Corridor trains.
Sporadic freight.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
The official position is a bunch of bus rearrangements with real rapid transit somewhere in the future.
The rapid transit aspects are plans I have been working on since 1985. There are two alternate proposals.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
The state has invested $20 million in Yawkey Station, a crucial part of an Orange Line alternative which would start at Ruggles Station on the Orange line, stop at Longwood Medical Area, then at Yawkey, then at a number of stops which both proposals use north of the Charles, ending in Charlestown with a transfer at Bunker Hill Community College or further out.
Yawkey Station is the key the Orange Line alternative would have a new stop under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike connecting Commuter Rail at Yawkey to the existing Green Line station at Kenmore. This would provide excellent covered connections among three Green Line branches, the new Orange Line station, the Commuter Rail and Fenway Park.
The Orange Line connections would allow such a route to be connected to trains on the existing Orange Line service. Phase 1 would be excellent. It could allow a spur off Ruggles station to Longwood Medical Area and the Kenmore-Yawkey Station. This spur could be arranged to allow direct, non transfer service from Dowtown Boston, Charlestown and west to Longwood and Kenmore.
Really excellent.
This route was initially proposed by me in 1986 and made part of the state considerations in about 1991.
(3) Streetcars.
Cambridge, its developers, and organizations influenced by Cambridge have put out a very consistent lie that there is only one alternative: a street car proposal which could not possibly get people off the Downtown Subway, a goal the Cambridge FORMAL representative pushed.
It would be quite destructive of the Charles River, and needlessly destructive because it is far inferior to the Orange Line proposal.
The different stations from the Orange Line proposal are south of the commonly proposed Mass. Ave. Station in the middle of the MIT Campus.
Then the route has a stop at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge which would be quite destructive to the residential neighborhood. It crosses the Charles River and then stops at Mountfort and St. Mary’s a block south of BU’s Marsh Chapel, this would connect to commuter rail at this point and connect to Fenway Park but be 4 to 6 blocks further away. Then it would have a station under Park Drive between the Riverside line (connecting to Fenway Park station) and the Beacon Street line (connecting to a new station under Audubon Circle).
This alternative stinks of the Grand Junction commuter rail.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
The part of the meeting which I found more enlightening included three presentations on the Urban Ring transportation system.
(1) MassDOT.
MassDOT called the plans in great hiatus and not meaningfully being considered. They described it as a bus proposal and neglected to mention the rapid transit aspects.
(2) Cambridge.
Cambridge’s representative put in a pitch for the rapid transit aspects without being specific.
But the nonsense put out by the Cambridge Pols denies the existence of the Orange Line route.
(3) Your Editor.
I called the bus proposal silly in the core area of Boston while having possible value in the outer areas. I pointed out that Yawkey Station, with the state funding, is highly valuable to the Framingham - Worcester people, and a crucial part of the meaningful rapid transit proposals. The streetcar proposal crosses the train line too far out, causing significantly inferior service. This is the Mountfort Station, next to the Mass. Pike, near Boston University’s Marsh Chapel.
I objected to Grand Junction use as far inferior, and expressed concern that the state could be trying to save money on the South Coast project at the expense of Worcester / Framingham and Cambridge by moving the trains to the Grand Junction. I pointed out that moving them would kill the value of the Urban Ring to Framingham/Worcester for which the state has spent $20 million on the Yawkey Station.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
A streetcar enthusiast from Somerville responded to me (not mentioning names) by pushing a transfer at Mountfort from the Mass. Pike. Drivers would have to be very foolish to want to get off to transfer to streetcars, to put it mildly. Such a proposal would require a garage on air rights over the Mass. Pike near BU’s Marsh Chapel, on air rights over the Mass. Pike in a number of possible locations perhaps going as far east as Brookline Avenue or as far west as the meadow just west of the BU Bridge.
I take such comments out of the blue from such a person as not at all to be ignored. This could very easily his exposing the pitch from Cambridge or their friends for their silly streetcars, trying to give Mountfort Station value in place of Yawkey.
6. Summary.
One succinct comment may be of value. Like so many things, dealing with MassDOT is day and night different from dealing with the City of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their controlled "organizations."
The con game from the Cambridge pols is very real and very much part of the usual script, except that MassDOT looks meaningful neutral, unless you listen to the scare tactics being put out by the Cambridge pols.
When the Cambridge pols tell me they are protecting me from something, I have a very strong tendency to believe the opposite.
You need look no farther than Alewife where a woman apparently trying to save the Alewife reservation certainly looks like she was fooled by the Cambridge pols into being a main cause of its destruction. She spent 15 years or so telling people to look at everything except for the core part which her “friends” in Cambridge wanted to and are now destroying.
Further studies and meetings will occur.
7. Media Coverage.
The Boston Globe’s on line report did not say much. It is at: http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-17/yourtown/29670836_1_commuter-rail-rail-line-light-rail.
2. Difference?
3. Numbers.
4. Current Daily Use.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
(3) Streetcars.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
(1) MassDOT.
(2) Cambridge.
(3) Your Editor.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
6. Summary.
7. Media Coverage.
1. Introductory.
There was a good crowd at the auditorium of the Morse School the evening of June 16, 2001.
The first thing to catch the eye was a flier on the front door of Morse School advertising the Cambridge Pols’ fraudulent “celebration” of Magazine Beach on which I have reported. My response to this con game was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle the same day and has seen links by the Boston Globe on line.
The issue is MassDOT’s consideration of passenger commuter use of the Grand Junction railroad running from the Beacon Yards in Allston to North Station in Boston for trains running between Framingham/Worcester and Boston. The Grand Junction railroad includes the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. It goes directly through the tiny part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not been destroyed for them.
As usual, the Cambridge Pols are running around blaming everybody else for attacking Cambridge and claiming to be saving people. The reality appears to be that key Cambridge Pols are the strongest entity fighting for this nonsense. They are playing their usual con game, trying to fool concerned people into stabbing themselves in the back while claiming to be their friends.
The proposal is silly. The state’s figures indicate a possible for an increase in round trips in the next 25 years from 21 per day now to 30 per day then.
2. Difference?
A big difference from the prior presentation was that the presenters were a lot more positive a few months ago that South Station, the current terminus, is being greatly expanded as a result of the South Coast (Fall River and New Bedford) passenger service resumption. This would be done by moving the South Postal annex to a location further in the South Boston waterfront area, tearing it down, and putting in trackage that was destroyed 50 or 60 years ago before the building was constructed. The additional trackage would leave plenty of room for Worcester expansion of service.
When I pointed out the change, the speakers suddenly got more positive about the possibility of South Station expansion.
3. Numbers.
There is a small fraction of the current passengers who are going to the North Station area by their studies (8%) or to the Cambridge Kendall Square area (5%). To service these passengers, the state is considering instituting passenger service which would interfere with traffic on 6 roadways in Cambridge, crossing at grade, and add to the environmental destruction Cambridge and other Cambridge friends are inflicting on the Charles River.
No tracks would be added to the Grand Junction railroad. Train speed would vary from 15 to 30 miles per hour.
The route would clearly be greatly inferior to the current route and would use a transportation technique, at grade crossings with drop down gates, which went out of favor more than 50 years ago, at least in densely developed communities.
However, key Cambridge Pols want to help Cambridge industrial developers and they are trying to scare the public into savaging themselves.
4. Current Daily Use.
Current daily use of the Grand Junction is as follows:
One scheduled freight.
MBTA moves to their repair shops.
Amtrak moves of cars from service on their Downeaster trains to their Northeast Corridor trains.
Sporadic freight.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
The official position is a bunch of bus rearrangements with real rapid transit somewhere in the future.
The rapid transit aspects are plans I have been working on since 1985. There are two alternate proposals.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
The state has invested $20 million in Yawkey Station, a crucial part of an Orange Line alternative which would start at Ruggles Station on the Orange line, stop at Longwood Medical Area, then at Yawkey, then at a number of stops which both proposals use north of the Charles, ending in Charlestown with a transfer at Bunker Hill Community College or further out.
Yawkey Station is the key the Orange Line alternative would have a new stop under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike connecting Commuter Rail at Yawkey to the existing Green Line station at Kenmore. This would provide excellent covered connections among three Green Line branches, the new Orange Line station, the Commuter Rail and Fenway Park.
The Orange Line connections would allow such a route to be connected to trains on the existing Orange Line service. Phase 1 would be excellent. It could allow a spur off Ruggles station to Longwood Medical Area and the Kenmore-Yawkey Station. This spur could be arranged to allow direct, non transfer service from Dowtown Boston, Charlestown and west to Longwood and Kenmore.
Really excellent.
This route was initially proposed by me in 1986 and made part of the state considerations in about 1991.
(3) Streetcars.
Cambridge, its developers, and organizations influenced by Cambridge have put out a very consistent lie that there is only one alternative: a street car proposal which could not possibly get people off the Downtown Subway, a goal the Cambridge FORMAL representative pushed.
It would be quite destructive of the Charles River, and needlessly destructive because it is far inferior to the Orange Line proposal.
The different stations from the Orange Line proposal are south of the commonly proposed Mass. Ave. Station in the middle of the MIT Campus.
Then the route has a stop at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge which would be quite destructive to the residential neighborhood. It crosses the Charles River and then stops at Mountfort and St. Mary’s a block south of BU’s Marsh Chapel, this would connect to commuter rail at this point and connect to Fenway Park but be 4 to 6 blocks further away. Then it would have a station under Park Drive between the Riverside line (connecting to Fenway Park station) and the Beacon Street line (connecting to a new station under Audubon Circle).
This alternative stinks of the Grand Junction commuter rail.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
The part of the meeting which I found more enlightening included three presentations on the Urban Ring transportation system.
(1) MassDOT.
MassDOT called the plans in great hiatus and not meaningfully being considered. They described it as a bus proposal and neglected to mention the rapid transit aspects.
(2) Cambridge.
Cambridge’s representative put in a pitch for the rapid transit aspects without being specific.
But the nonsense put out by the Cambridge Pols denies the existence of the Orange Line route.
(3) Your Editor.
I called the bus proposal silly in the core area of Boston while having possible value in the outer areas. I pointed out that Yawkey Station, with the state funding, is highly valuable to the Framingham - Worcester people, and a crucial part of the meaningful rapid transit proposals. The streetcar proposal crosses the train line too far out, causing significantly inferior service. This is the Mountfort Station, next to the Mass. Pike, near Boston University’s Marsh Chapel.
I objected to Grand Junction use as far inferior, and expressed concern that the state could be trying to save money on the South Coast project at the expense of Worcester / Framingham and Cambridge by moving the trains to the Grand Junction. I pointed out that moving them would kill the value of the Urban Ring to Framingham/Worcester for which the state has spent $20 million on the Yawkey Station.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
A streetcar enthusiast from Somerville responded to me (not mentioning names) by pushing a transfer at Mountfort from the Mass. Pike. Drivers would have to be very foolish to want to get off to transfer to streetcars, to put it mildly. Such a proposal would require a garage on air rights over the Mass. Pike near BU’s Marsh Chapel, on air rights over the Mass. Pike in a number of possible locations perhaps going as far east as Brookline Avenue or as far west as the meadow just west of the BU Bridge.
I take such comments out of the blue from such a person as not at all to be ignored. This could very easily his exposing the pitch from Cambridge or their friends for their silly streetcars, trying to give Mountfort Station value in place of Yawkey.
6. Summary.
One succinct comment may be of value. Like so many things, dealing with MassDOT is day and night different from dealing with the City of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their controlled "organizations."
The con game from the Cambridge pols is very real and very much part of the usual script, except that MassDOT looks meaningful neutral, unless you listen to the scare tactics being put out by the Cambridge pols.
When the Cambridge pols tell me they are protecting me from something, I have a very strong tendency to believe the opposite.
You need look no farther than Alewife where a woman apparently trying to save the Alewife reservation certainly looks like she was fooled by the Cambridge pols into being a main cause of its destruction. She spent 15 years or so telling people to look at everything except for the core part which her “friends” in Cambridge wanted to and are now destroying.
Further studies and meetings will occur.
7. Media Coverage.
The Boston Globe’s on line report did not say much. It is at: http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-17/yourtown/29670836_1_commuter-rail-rail-line-light-rail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)