TAKE 2: MARK TWAIN + URBAN RING PHASE 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stayed tuned for follow up.

Archie Mazmanian

Magazine Beach poison drainage, trees near Phil Barber photos.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARK TWAIN + URBAN RING PHASE 2

Archie Mazmanian reports, Bob La Trémouille ed.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archie Mazmanian

Photos of Tree Destruction

Bob La Trémouille reports:

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

Phil Barber Reports:

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

Hi Bob, I hope this finds you well.

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

Take care,
Phil

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

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

Phil

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

***********

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

Marilyn Wellons

Day 396, Desolation.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Work.
3. The resident animals.
4. The Bad Guys’ Explanation.

1. Visibility.

I conducted a visibility across from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at about 1 pm or so on June 22, 2010.

There is definitely not the foot traffic at this hour as during the evening rush, but there was more than yesterday.

People were nice, and the drivers show aggressiveness I have seen in the past.

2. Work.

In contrast to yesterday, I actually saw workers.

The workers have spread themselves out. Destruction of 3/4 of the Nesting Area was as heartless as the behavior which has been tradition from Governor Patrick’s people and from the City of Cambridge. Spreading out their goods did not hide the fact that about have the work area destruction was unnecessary.

3. The resident animals.

The really rotten nature of Governor Patrick’s people and Cambridge comes when you see the condition which has been forced on resident animals.

Their food has been poisoned at Magazine Beach and walled off with introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River, but the really rotten behavior is in the tiny ghetto who which the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

All ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed.

What was once lush greenery is now dirt. The green environment was destroyed in stages from about 2003 to the destruction as part of the BU Bridge repairs. There is no coincidence whatsoever that the construction zone destroyed almost all of what was not destroyed in the period 2003 to 2009.

I have posted some good photos in earlier reports and a larger collection of photos appears on the home page of the Charles River White Geese at Facebook.

4. The Bad Guys’ Explanation.

Governor Patrick’s people started their lies before he came into office, nonstop lies of intention to do no harm.

Cambridge’s machine simply tosses out the usual holier than thous that they are protecting the environment. Natuarlly,the somehow neglect to mention their environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse during their pieties.

Really rotten people.

Day 395, No signs of work.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Observations.

1. Visibility.

On June 21, 2010, I leafleted a little after noon in sight of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Traffic, once again, was quite bad because four lanes have been reduced to two.

There were even less people on the sidewalk than was the situation the day before, on Sunday. Nevertheless, the few people I saw were quite responsive.

2. Observations.

I saw no signs of life with regard to the construction.

There were people using the soccer field.

Day 394 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — The work looks that much more bizarre

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Magazine Beach.
3. Malvina Monteiro.

1. Visibility.

On Sunday, June 20, 2010, I conducted a visibility on the west side of the BU Bridge across from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

It was a little bit past noon on Sunday, and the temperature was in the 80s.

Definitely not a busy time for pedestrians, although, because of the closing of bridge lanes, the car traffic was heavy.

We changed generations of fliers to a slightly different new printing. The new flier tells people about the new Facebook page created by Nick Cheung, a friend of the Charles River White Geese in Maine. As I started passing out the first few of the new fliers, I mentioned friending the Charles River White Geese on Facebook. The comment was well received.

2. Magazine Beach.

The bizarre introduced vegetation gets thicker at the same time as the DCR destroys native protective vegetation everywhere else on the Charles River twice a year.

The poison drainage system looks really very massive, an awful lot of recreation area destroyed simply because Cambridge and the state are so irresponsible as to dump poisons on the banks of the Charles River and then devise a way to drain the poisons off.

The responsible techniques would have been to have meaningful respect for the environment.

There were seven acres of healthy grass which survived without poisons for the better part of a century. That grass would survive one again. All that is necessary is toss on seeds for the responsible grass and stop feeding the poisons to keep the sickly introduced stuff alive.

To make it worse, the sickly introduced stuff seems to be wearing down under whatever little use the playing fields has seen.

3. Malvina Monteiro.

To date the appeal does not seem to have been filed yet. At least the public index does not reflect a case filed this year under her name.

When the case was in Superior Court, membership in the legal profession was needed to get access to the docket. On the appellate level, anybody can get access. The search page is: http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search.php. Just put in Ms. Monteiro’s name and 2010. There are a number of Monteiro cases in the index, but not Malvina, not yet.

Monteiro Appeal Filed by Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Today, June 14, 2010, Cambridge filed notice of appeal in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. We have given quite a few reports on this case. The most important case paper can be accessed from the link in the upper right corner which reads: “Monteiro Judge on Cambridge: Reprehensible.”

The following is the notice of appeal from the on line docket. The on line docket uses software which destroyed paragraphing. ALL the below paragraphing is my best guess. To the extent extraneous numbers appear in my quote, please let me know about them. They would be line numbers that I missed in the edit.

Please also note that the software loses a lot of punctuation / emphasis. I have made no attempt to correct these errors.

It is highly likely that the below quote is just the title. There may have been other matters filed as part of the document.


*******

Defendant City of Cambridge's (second renewed) notice of appeal from:

(1) Corrected Amended Final Judgment on Jury Verdict entered on June 4, 2010;

(2) Amended Order of Judgment entered on May 20, 2010;

(3) Memorandum and Order on defendant's motion for reconsideration entered on May 20, 2010;

(4) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's Petition for award of fees and costs entered on May 20, 2010;

(5) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's motion to clarify, alter and 8 amend the court's judgment on jury verdicts entered on May 20, 2010, including but not limited to reversal to the previous award of costs 10 to defendant relating to the first trial;

(6) Judgment on jury verdicts entered on June 2, 2009;

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

(a) defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict;

(b) Defendant's motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur, and

(c) motoin to supplement the record on appeal.

(8) Order from the Bench at the Charge Conference in May, 2008, rejecting defendant's proposed retaliation charge under McCormack v. Boston Edison, and other objections as preserved;

(9) Order denying defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions;

(10) Order from the bench denying defendant City of Cambridge's motion for directed verdict dated May 20, 2008;

(11) order from the bench of May 13, 2008 denying defendant's motion for mistrial in connection with the admission of so-called "comparator" evidence;

(12) Implicit orders refusing to consider the defendant's submission of Statement of Authority regarding Everett v. The 357 Corp., filed on April 22, 2009, while giving full consideration to plaintiff's co-called statement of supplemental Authority regarding Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed on December 28, 2009;

(13) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict dated February 22, 2005 (first trial);

(14) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict and/or reconsideration of the denial of motion for directed verdict dated June 2, 2005, including but not limited to the denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a rule 64 Report (first trial);

(15) order denying motion of defendant City of Cambridge for entry of partial judgment dated August 4, 2005 (first trial); and

(16) January 2005 order from the bench allowing plaintiff Monteiro's motion to amend complaint filed on December 14, 2004 (first trial).

Cambridge School Committee Member Marc McGovern: "Compassion" v. Heartlessness

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn’s Letter to the Editor.
3. The Exchange on Line.
A. Bob #1. Two weeks ago.
B. McGovern #2. Two weeks ago.
C. Bob #2. One week ago.
D. McGovern #3. One week ago.

1. Introduction.

In the June 3, 2010, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, there was a letter to the editor from Cambridge School Committee Member Marc McGovern.

McGovern communicated a high level of sweetness in calling for compassion in the budget process. Compassion came through a lot more clearly than budget.

In the past, McGovern has printed two letters in the Cambridge Chronicle endorsing the outrage which has since been implemented at Magazine Beach.

McGovern has been disowning any responsibility for anything negative at Magazine Beach ever since.

McGovern’s latest letter was also printed on line. I responded on line. McGovern responded to me. I responded back. McGovern responded back to me.

Marilyn Wellons submitted a letter to the editor aimed at publication in the hard copy edition.

Marilyn’s letter follows. Then follows the on line exchange without the original McGovern letter. My two pieces are my two pieces and I think there would be no problem whatsoever passing them on. McGovern’s responses to me are extremely short and highly relevant to the purposes of this blog. They seem appropriate. The original McGovern letter is too long to print here without very clearly violating the doctrine of fair use, and really, except for the tone, is not relevant to this blog.

2. Marilyn’s Letter to the Editor.

David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

To the Editor:

Cambridge School Committeeman McGovern’s letter about the School Department budget and staff firings (“We must never lose our compassion” May 31, 2010) and the subsequent online exchange about his support for the city’s squandering of $1.5M at Magazine Beach sent me to my notes of a telephone call Mr. McGovern made to me last summer, on August 5, 2009.

Campaigning for re-election and apparently stung by my July 23 letter to the Chronicle about the chemically maintained Little League and youth soccer fields that $1.5M was buying, he quickly acknowledged the project was a mistake. I gathered voters, especially parents in the Cambridgeport Little League that he headed, were not happy at the prospect of their children’s exposure to endocrine-disrupting substances.

We had a free and frank exchange of views. He said then, as he does now online, that he had no responsibility for the planning of the project. I challenged that, citing his consistent public support for it individually, as both a Little League official and School Committee candidate, and together with State Rep. Marty Walz. When he claimed he had no knowledge of plans for chemical maintenance, I reminded him with some heat of our conversation at the Dana Park party in June, 2007, when I told him about it and handed him a flyer with that information in writing. On the phone, he pointed to the DCR as responsible for the fields’ maintenance, and when I told him Cambridge would maintain the fields he said that was Paul Ryder’s responsibility, not his.

Money is fungible. Our elected officials have thought $1.5M a reasonable sum to pay to destroy sustainable, naturally maintained playing fields at Magazine Beach, open to all, that were also simultaneously a place for contact with the natural world. What else could that $1.5M (or, say, another $6.9M) have bought, or buy now, to make Mr. McGovern’s call for compassion unnecessary?

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

[Ed: Marilyn’s mention of $6.9 M refers to the latest counting of the award in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, reported elsewhere in this blog. This is the Chronicle’s quote of the plaintiff’s attorney. In this blog, please note in particular the link referring to a judge calling Cambridge “reprehensible.”]

3. The Exchange on Line.

I start with McGovern #2 counting the originally published letter which I am not reproducing (see above) as #1.

The dates are those posted on line.

A. Bob #1. Two weeks ago.

A very major expenditure that Mr. McGovern has belligerently supported is the bizarre project at Magazine Beach featuring very prominent and very heartless animal abuse. Heartless animal abuse which is a direct result of bizarre expenditure of funds is exactly the opposite of 'compassion.'

I would suggest that Mr. McGovern show compassion. He repeatedly claims that he only has responsibility for the good stuff in this outrageous waste of money. There is no good stuff.

Mr. McGovern could save money at Magazine Beach by stopping the dumping of poisons there. The poisons are there to keep alive introduced grass which cannot survive without lots of money being spent on poisons to keep it alive. Mr. McGovern, at the same time, is poisoning animals feeding off this and poisoning kids rolling in it.

Mr. McGovern can responsibly save money by tossing on the seeds of the grass which survived at Magazine Beach for the better part of a century and did not need poisons to survive. You toss on enough seeds and you no longer have to spend money on poisons to keep alive sickly grass.

At the same time, the beautiful 30 years resident and thus native Charles River White Geese are kept from their primary source of food at Magazine Beach by a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has not business on the Charles River.

Mr. McGovern's agents at the DCR, twice a year, run around the Charles River destroying native vegetation vegetation, but they do not destroy the bizarre introduced stuff that Mr. McGovern is responsible for.

Boston's Conservation Commission has punished the DCR for its destructiveness toward the native vegetation. The BCC is concerned about resident and visiting water fowl.

I would suggest that Mr. McGovern show compassion and common sense. Have the DCR chop down his introduced vegetation to end its harm to the native water fowl.

The DCR representative has bragged that this stuff keeps away the native water fowl.

My understanding is that Mr. McGovern has a total lack of compassion when it comes to his bizarre project at Magazine Beach.

Shame. 'We must never lose our compassion' is what he says in the next to the last sentence.

Interesting.

B. McGovern #2. Two weeks ago.

I am the president of central division little league. The project you are referring to is being run by DCR. I can't even get them to put a port-a-potty at the field let alone stop their project. You make slanderous and outrageous statements. 'Mr. McGovern is at this time is poisoning animals...' This is untrue and I am demanding that you stop making false allegations. 'Have the DCR chop down HIS introduced vegetation...' I did not introduce anything in this project. I never attended a meeting. I was never asked my opinion and had nothing to do with the planning of this field. I did write two letters thanking the DCR for redoing the little league field. That is all. I will not comment any further on your ridiculous statements.

C. Bob #2. One week ago.

Golly gee. Those lovely letters in the Chronicle must have been fakes, and even after never attending a meeting.

I live and oppose the really rotten situation you have consistently supported.

Have compassion. Undo the outrage you have public[ly] supported and then claim[ed] shock that anybody would blame you.

Give Cambridge open space. Start with the open space you have destroyed at Magazine Beach.

Massive amounts of open space have been destroyed for an expensive drainage system to drain poisons which were not necessary until you destroyed the healthy grass which was there for the better part of a century and replaced it with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive.

Stop the poisons (and stop poisoning kids) by replacing your sickly grass with the native stuff you destroyed. Then you can fill in the poison drainage and give up back the playing fields you destroyed.

Chop down the bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business starving animals, and no business on the Charles River.

Chop down all those bizarre fences.

Oh, and, as usual, the two letters you put in the Chronicle unconditionally supporting this outrage are a fiction and my imagination.

How dare anybody expect you to be responsible a project which you have unconditionally supported.

A project which HAS NO VALUE. Destruction which HAS NO VALUE.

NO, NO, NO.

Small open space is not an improvement. [Ed: Typo, “small” should have been “smaller”.]

Poisoned playing fields are not an improvement.
Show compassion on the kids you have done this to.

Show compassion on the animals you have done this to.

Show compassion on the environement.

And stop the lies that you do no support an outrage to which you gave unconditioned PUBLIC support in the pages of this newspaper.

OUTRAGEOUS.

D. McGovern #3. One week ago.

I said I wrote two letters.

Monteiro judge’s reconsideration memorandum.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

Thank you to the Cambridge Chronicle for posting the key judge’s decision this year on line at http://www.scribd.com/doc/31878327/monteiro, and thank you to Marilyn Wellons for recognizing the link in the Chronicle report, which I missed.

I have traded the key 2009 decision for this decision and attempted to download this decision to my hard drive.

Scribd tells me it downloaded, but my computer tells me it is not there.

This thing is not directly copiable and I now seem to be in some sort of loop.

In any case, the decision is at the above link. Total postings are apparently 16 pages including other papers which I have already posted.

In order to resolve the oddities, I have retyped the memorandum.

My retyping is perfect except for converting double spacing to single. Some specific formatting has been changed by the blog. An extended quote was double indented in the original and my copy. That has been lost. This formatting is replaced by asterisks preceding and following.

The Court's Memorandum on Reconsideration of the Penal Damages award follows:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. MICV2001-02737


MALVINA MONTEIRO,
Plaintiff

vs.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
Defendant


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Defendant City of Cambridge (“Defendant” or “the City”) has moved for reconsideration of the issue of punitive damages on the basis that the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009) requires that the award be vacated. The City contends that, as a matter of law, “the standard for the award of punitive damages as enunciated in the Haddad decision was not met in this case.” This Court disagrees.

In Haddad, although there was no claim of error in the instructions given on punitive damages, and the SJC found none, the Court nonetheless “[took the] opportunity . . . to set forth a new standard describing the circumstances in which punitive damages may be awarded.” Id. at 110.

**********

To sustain an award of punitive damages under G.L., c. 151B, §4, a finding of intentional discrimination alone is not sufficient. An award of punitive damages requires a heightened finding beyond mere liability and also beyond a knowing violation of the statute. Punitive damages may be awarded only where the defendant’s conduct is outrageous or egregious. Punitive damages are warranted where the conduct is so offensive that it justifies punishment and not merely compensation. In making an award of punitive damages, the fact finder should determine that the awarded is needed to deter such behavior toward the class of which plaintiff is a member, or that the demendant’s behavior is so egregious that it warrants public condemnation and punishment. Id. At 110-111 (citations omitted; emphasis added).

**********

Although the present case pre-dated Haddad, the jury instructions on punitive damages (which were essentially those requested by the City) emphasized the need for the jury to make findings that the conduct was “outrageous” and “extreme” in nature. Therefore, assuming Haddad applies to this case, the jury instructions were consistent with the standard set forth by theSJC. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the SJC’s discussion in Haddad is not applicable here.

The Court in Haddad made it clear that its new enunciated punitive damages standard was to be applied prospectively, that is, it is “to be applied in (1) all claims for punitive damages under G.L., c. 151B commenced after the date of the rescript in this opinion, and (2) all pending claims that have not gone to judgment in the Trial Court by such date.” Id.

The decision does not appy there to a case such as the present case, where the case has been tried, the jury has been instructed and has rendered its verdict, and post-trial motions have been heard and decided. Here, verdicts were returned on May 23, 2008; this Court entered its decision on post-trial motions, which included uphonding the award of punitive damages, on April 24, 2009; a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment was allowed on May 18, 2009; and Final Judgment entered on June 2, 2009. The only matter “pending” at the time of the SJC decision was a Rule 59 motion concerning the form of the judgment. The City’s motion for reconsideration thus has no legal support.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the City’s Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is DENIED.

Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso
Judge of the Superior Court

Date: May 20, 2010

Monteiro: $6.9 million for destroying a woman’s life, not for discrimination.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have now seen two key people describe the judge and jury’s award to Malvina Monteiro as a discrimination award.

If it were a discrimination award, it would not even come close to that number.

The key number, $3.5 million, is penal damages for destroying Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for her filing the claim.

“Reprehensible” is the judge’s word which the judge used as part of her finding. The judge clearly demonstrated the city manager’s destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for Malvina Monteiro filing the civil rights claim.

Cambridge has a city council which, as usual, does not want to know what it is doing. The city council’s lack of interest in what it is doing, tars the city council with the condemnation by judge and jury.

If the city council were decent human beings, the city council would be firing the city manager without pension and without golden parachute, with permission of the judge.

Treating the Cambridge city manager the way he deserves would establish precedent, but it difficult to think of a fact situation which would more justify this precedent.

So, as you hear people saying this nonsense that the $6.9 million is a discrimination payment, listen to the judge.

Read her summary of the key evidence, as stated in her key opinion (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html).

Read her summary of the award in her judgment, in my immediately preceding post.

The judge, as she was summarizing the award, spoke of: “Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the [discrimination] claims in May of 2008". These Cambridge activists are making statements of award with regard to a complaint the Plaintiff has dismissed.

Cambridge has a reprehensible city manager and a reprehensible city council. All that is needed to see just how reprehensible the city council is is the fact that the city council considers the city manager’s behavior normal.

Cambridge has a situation in which a lot of people constantly just cannot understand what is going on. So people describe a reality which does not exist. And this fake reality gives decent human beings the impression that a really bad city government is something other than it is.

The Cambridge Chronicle’s report may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x884192639/Cambridge-workplace-retaliation-lawsuit-costing-taxpayers-close-to-7M.

The judge rules: Malvina Monteiro to be paid over $6 million.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. The rulings on line.
A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.
C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.
D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.
E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.


1. Introduction.

The latest orders in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge came down on May 21, 2010 and May 24, 2010.

Thank you to Carolyn Shipley on the Cambridgeport list for pointing this out to me.

I have gone to the Court’s docket and obtained what is reported on the docket. They follow below, with paragraphing added and line numbering deleted. If you see any inexplicable numbers, they are probably line numbers I missed. I would appreciate being informed of such errors.

This time, the reasoning of the Court has not been posted on line.

Carolyn quoted the Cambridge Chronicle's report that the award is $6.9 million. This is the Chronicle’s quote of Monteiro’s attorney as stated in the on line version of the report.

My comment provided to the Cambridgeport list read as follows:

***********

Thank you to Carolyn for reporting this.

I have not picked up the Chronicle yet and I cannot find this report on line in the Chronicle.

In contrast to the main decision, the Court's on line record, the on line docket does not include the rationalization for the decisions. I will post what little I have on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

I do not see a heck of a lot complicated about this matter.

The judge's key decision last year was excellent. The City Council should have then and still can fire the City Manager for cause, preferably with permission of the judge.

The judge has made an excellent case for firing the City Manager, with judicial permission, without pension and without golden parachute. Rather than wasting money on a silly appeal for the benefit of the City Manager, the City Council should switch sides to the side they claim to be on.

An excellent precedent can be made out of this case if the Cambridge City Council is pro civil rights.

This is yet another example of decent people deeply offended by the behavior of the City of Cambridge, and the Cambridge City Council not wanting to know what is going on.

This woman has suffered enough.

$6.9 million enough.

*********

2. The rulings on line.

A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION:

For the foregoing reasons, the City's Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is denied.

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).

Copies mailed May 21, 2010

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY, ALTER AND AMEND THE COURT'S JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICTS:

For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that an Amended Judgment shall issue reflecting prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 through June 12, 5 2008 and post judgment interest on the award of damages and attorney's fees running from June 12, 2008

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).

Copies mailed May 21, 2010

C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS:

For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that the plaintiff recover $545,842.00 in attorney's fees and $23,697.00 in costs.

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).

Copies mailed May 21, 2010

D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.

Amended Order of Judgment:

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.

With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.

With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;

(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,

(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.

With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.

With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;

(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,

(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.

(Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso, J)

copes mailed May 21, 2010

E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT:

This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice, presiding, the issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.

With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.

With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $438,003.70 from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008,and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest($1,500,403.70), in the sum of $350,727.57 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010;

The court further awards (b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $81,814.41 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010; and,

(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842 and costs in the amount of $23,697.

Copies mailed 5/24/10.

Kathy Podgers's video of Charles River White Geese goslings, 2010 edition

This shows us the beautiful goslings and the bare ground near the riverbank where the DCR and its allies have destroyed vegetation.

Many thanks to Kathy.

Praise for the Cambridge Chronicle

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter to the Editor, written 5/15/10.
2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.


Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter to the Editor, blog entry written 5/15/10.

I have submitted the following Letter to the Editor:

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

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The Chronicle is to be commended on its handling of the City Council’s shell game on the environment in the May 3 and 10 meetings.

On May 13, the Chronicle front paged the council’s vote to allow destruction of 16,293 square feet of, according to the City Manager, “extensive tree growth” so that it could be replaced with asphalt. The council seems to be keeping that May 3 vote as secret as possible. The council specifically voted to exempt this destruction from public meetings in which the tree destruction could be meaningfully communicated to the voters.

The Chronicle seemed to ignore the oh so lovely vote on May 10. In that vote, the council said nice things about some trees owned by Cambridge. The council wondered what kind of protections there are for this limited number of city owned trees.

Supporters of the council seem unaware of the vote for destruction of 16,293 square feet of “extensive tree growth.” The supporters brag about the next to meaningless vote inquiring as to what protections exist for some trees owned by Cambridge.

Other environmental destruction the council does not want to talk about includes: the pending destruction of the core part of the Alewife reservation, the apparently ongoing destruction of thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the planned destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles, the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese, and the ongoing destruction of all animals living on or visiting the first 10 miles of the Charles.

The destruction supported by all councilors present at the May 3 vote could be similar to destruction planned for an excellent grove of 104 trees on Memorial Drive. This excellent grove is quite thick. It is just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split, a little east of the Hyatt.

At absolute minimum, both the destruction voted for in the May 3 vote and the destruction pending on Memorial Drive are highway projects.

Shame, I had hoped there would be a change in the environmental approach of the Cambridge City Council.

I got conned by the machinations of the City Council’s representatives.

The Chronicle saw through the shell game. The Chronicle caught reality and the Chronicle publicized reality.

Good work.

Thank you.

2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.

The above letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle’s May 21 edition along with a letter from a council supporter quite a bit separated from my letter. My letter was fourth of seven letters, very much in the middle of the editorial page. The support letter was last, on the continuing page, the op ed page.

The thought comes to mind that my letter is hardly the way to encourage nice sounding “action” by the Cambridge City Council. The trouble is that I have seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action.”

The non stop nice sounding “action” has been paralleled by a really vile reality.

This latest really vile reality was too very close to the nice sounding “action.” I have learned from ten years of really bad behavior out of the Cambridge City Council that it is difficult and actually downright silly to underestimate the Cambridge City Council.

Actually, when you include fake downzonings and other really destructive environmental harm, the record is much more than ten years.

We are dealing with a really rotten entity which stays in power by lying about itself.

Cambridge, MA, City Council Votes on Environmental Destruction in Watertown, MA

1. City Manager Letter.
2. City Manager Order 14A.
3. City Manager Order 14B
4. City Manager Order 14C.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

Following up on my analysis of May 13, 2010.

The following are the key documents, taken from the Minutes of the Cambridge City Council, May 3, 2010, City Manager Communication 14, http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/cmLetter.cfm?item_id=17021.

There were three roll call votes, reported on line as 8 - 0 - 1. Nobody voted in opposition. Councilor Davis was absent.

Note that the Cambridge City Council not only voted to destroy the environment, they voted to do so without the legal protections which they are supposed to be respecting.

In the following meeting, the City Council, after voting for OFF STREET environmental destruction in Watertown, voted to study procedures concerning destruction of street trees in Cambridge.

Another vote on May 3 was to attack raccoons living near the Squirrel Brand Building between Broadway and Harvard Street a block west of Windsor Street in the The Port neighborhood of Cambridge. This is a site in which Cambridge, as one of its first acts after conversion of a factory to affordable housing, was the destruction of a grove of 8 to 12 trees exceeding four stories in height. There was no opposition to attacking the local racoons.


1. City Manager Letter.

May 3, 2010

To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am submitting a request I received from the Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent easement of about 16,293 square feet (the "Easement") over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") so that DCR may construct and maintain a bicycle/pedestrian path. In September of 2009, I granted a license to DCR to permit it to commence construction of the bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area. The bicycle/pedestrian path is part of a larger DCR/ Massachusetts Highway Department ("MHD") project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway in the City for recreational use by members of the public.

The Easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path. Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the City will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.

I recommend that the City Council approve the grant of the requested Easement at the Property to allow for a bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area and approve submission of a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature in order to obtain approval under Article 97 of the grant of the requested Easement. Assuming the Article 97 legislation is granted, I will also need authorization to grant the Easement, and therefore, I am also requesting the City Council to authorize disposition of the requested Easement and diminution of the full disposition of City-owned land process pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

Diminution of Process and Disposition of Easement under Chapter 2.110

First, the proposal must be considered by the Council pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, which governs the disposition of city-owned property. I believe this disposition is properly subject to Section 2.110.010 (G) of that ordinance. Section G provides for the disposition of city-owned property where the full process of the ordinance would be unduly burdensome. Under this section, the City Manager may request of the City Council a diminution of the process in the ordinance; approval of this request requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council. I recommend such approval at this time.

Secondly, Section 2.110.010 also requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council to authorize the City Manager to grant the Easement. I also recommend that the City Council vote to authorize me to grant the Easement, and to execute and deliver the Easement in such form and substance as I determine is necessary or advisable.

I believe that the relatively minor incursions of the bicycle/pedestrian path into, onto, or over the water line qualify this proposed disposition for the diminished process permitted by Section 2.110.010(G). Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Chapter: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question."

I believe that the information furnished in this letter is sufficient to enable the City Council to make a determination on this matter. Carrying out a more detailed review would require significant amount of money and staff time. Since the procedure set forth in the Chapter would be costly and the area at issue is minimal, I believe this to be the type of disposition anticipated by subsection (G) which allows for a simpler process; and I therefore request that you approve a diminution of the full disposition review process and authorize me to grant the requested Easement.

Home Rule Petition

Given that the Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, the granting of this Easement requires Article 97 legislation. Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts provides in part that "[t]he people shall have the right to clean air and water . . . ; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of . . . water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose. . . . Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two-thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court." Accordingly, a Home Rule Petition must be submitted to the Legislature and must get a two-thirds vote of approval by the both the House and the Senate. I request that you approve the submission of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled, "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to the Legislature in order to seek its approval of the Easement pursuant to Article 97.

Conclusion

Consequently, I am asking for three votes from the City Council: (1) approval of the Home Rule Petition and authorization to seek said Article 97 legislation from both the House and the Senate, (2) diminution of the process, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council, and (3) disposition of the easement, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter and welcome any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,



Robert W. Healy
City Manager

RWH/mec
Attachment(s)

2. City Manager Order 14A.

ORDERED: Pursuant to Section 2.110.010(g) of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the City Council hereby orders that the City Council shall utilize a diminished process for the disposition of a permanent easement on and over certain strips of land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation, for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path as part of a Department of Conservation and Recreation and Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway, as set forth in Robert W. Healy's May 3, 2010 letter to the City Council.


3. City Manager Order 14B

WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has received a request from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent surface easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown in order to construct a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement"); and

WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will be used to connect large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of the Easement area as part of a larger DCR/Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway; and

WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will also benefit Cambridge in several ways. Not only will the Easement provide recreational benefits, but DCR will maintain the bicycle/pedestrian path so as to ensure the long-term benefits to the City of clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it, which will protect the water line from future tree growth over it and from further root damage; and

WHEREAS: The combined total of the Easement area is approximately 16,293 square feet; and

WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and

WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of the permanent surface Easement for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path connecting large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of it would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and

WHEREAS: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 15B, before executing the Easement to DCR for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions, the City of Cambridge must first notify the Town of Watertown that it intends to do so and ensure that the Town of Watertown does not wish to acquire the Easement for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Council declares that use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the water line and therefore that the City Manager is authorized, after determining that the Town of Watertown will not exercise any rights it has to acquire the Easement area on the same terms and conditions and for the same purposes it is being offered to DCR, to grant on behalf of the City of Cambridge, pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the permanent surface Easement to DCR for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path and to execute and deliver such Easement in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable.


4. City Manager Order 14C.

May 3, 2010

1. WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of a permanent easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement") would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and

WHEREAS: The Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, and therefore, the granting of this Easement requires legislation under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts; and

WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and

WHEREAS: The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is forthwith to authorize the granting of a certain Easement in land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience; now therefore be it

ORDERED That a petition to the General Court, accompanied by a bill for a special law relating to the City of Cambridge attached and entitled "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to be filed with an attested copy of this order be, and hereby is, approved under Clause (1) of Section 8 of Article 2, as amended, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the end that legislation be adopted precisely as follows, except for clerical or editorial changes of form only.

Day 393, Tree Destruction by Cambridge City Council.

1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.
A. Conned.
B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.
C. Vote to study street trees.
D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

On Thursday, May 13, 2010, I conducted the 393d or more visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

I was there before the rush hour so there was minimal pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic was incredible, a result of half of the lanes on the BU Bridge being closed.

2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.

A. Conned.

An operative for the Cambridge Machine heavily publicized the May 10, Cambridge City Council meeting, giving the impression that Councilor Cheung was protecting four street trees near Hoyt Field, which is about 2½ blocks from the Charles River.

I was minimally impressed when I saw the motion and realized that it was a study of whatever regulations exist with regard to street trees. I pointed out to her that big destruction by the City of Cambridge and its friends is being done to non street trees. A good cheerleader, she could not hear me and insisted this was a good start.

Kathy Podgers read the Chronicle report of Cambridge vote to destroy who knows how many trees in Watertown. She attempted to pass that report on as an addition to my report of a Yahoo report concerning the vote. The Chronicle report was on line, but did not make the hard copy as far as I have yet to be able to find.

The Chronicle front paged the vote to destroy all those trees in Watertown for construction a small vehicle highway by the state. The vote was 8 for, 0 opposed, and 1 something else. I am trying to get details on the something else.

The reality is that the street tree study is exactly the opposite of a good start since it follows a meaningful vote for tree destruction.

B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.

Kathy Podgers has wisely pointed out the Chronicle report on the meeting the previous Monday meeting which may be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1560851973/Cambridge-OKs-state-bike-path-plan. It was front paged.

The city manager is quoted as justifying giving the DCR an easement over Cambridge controlled property in Watertown. He minimizes the importance on the basis that there are a bunch of trees there which would be destroyed by the proposed small vehicle highway.

So the City Council knowingly voted to destroy the trees.

Kathy Podgers comments: “Apparently, one hand gives, while the other hand takes away... “ and she quotes the Chronicle quote of Healy:

*******

“The easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path,” Healy wrote. “Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the city will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.”

*******

A similar situation exists on Memorial Drive. A grove of about 104 excellent trees currently has reached a very beautiful maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split. This is a couple blocks east of the Hyatt.

One of the Machine’s beloved highways would decimate that grove. Those, for the most part, are not street trees. They are an excellent grove on the banks of the Charles River.

And the city council is emphasizing a STUDY of STREET trees while voting to destroy trees on Cambridge land in Watertown for another small vehicle highway. And somehow, even though they vote for destruction of city trees not on streets, the city councl cannot understand there are other trees that street trees under threat from government?

The exact language of the votes is reported above at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambridge-ma-city-council-votes-on.html.


C. Vote to study street trees.

Cambridge has a new City Councilor, Leland Cheung.

He submitted a motion to look into the procedure for destroying STREET trees in Cambridge. His motion has no concern for the destruction of publicly owned trees, no matter how excellent, which are not street trees.

We cannot say whether or not his study would get into the planned destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive before they are destroyed in the same manner as the Cambridge trees.

Clearly, it would not impact the trees in Watertown that the city council voted to destroy, would not impact the planned destruction of the Alewife reservation, the ongoing destruction of apparently thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach, the ongoing and heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese or the ongoing destruction of all animals living or visiting the first ten miles of the Charles River.

From my point of view, I can see no possibility of the City of Cambridge becoming meaningfully responsible on environmental matters without firing the current City Manager and gutting The Cambridge Machine. You can add to that a similar problem with regard to Civil Rights, and you can keep on going. There are a lot of problems which simply stink, and the middle of the apparent stink has to be the core of the government.

Mr. Cheung’s motion passed without negative vote. I am checking to see if he is the person who voted something other than for or against the destruction of the Cambridge owned trees in Watertown which are being replaced with lovely paving.

D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.

By contrast, there was an interesting interchange among three Machine members or beneficiaries, Seidel, Decker and Kelly.

Seidel and Decker are clearly destructive. Kelly tries to give the opposite impression.

This exchange follows on another vote last week in which a UNANIMOUS city council voted to attack raccoons in Squirrel Brand park.

The exchange among the three concerned raccoons. This exchange could be another con game from the three of them, Kelly, Seidel and Decker, trying to make Kelly look good. The three of them could consider Leland Cheung a threat, especially if Cheung, not a Machine product, turns out to be for real.

After apparently voting for this outrage, Kelley is trying to show himself as responsible on animal matters.

Seidel and Decker expressed concern that kids could get poisoned from eating the feces of raccoons.

Eight member of the city council are dumping poisons on Magazine Beach for kids to roll in and Seidel and Decker are trying to protect kids from being poisoned by eating excrement???

Nominal Action in Monteiro

Bob La Trémouille reports.

The case of Monteiro v. Cambridge has had numerous reports on this blog, and a link prominently posted to the key judge’s decision.

The case is in post judgment motions. Cambridge has filed notice of appeal and then admitted the notice of appeal was improperly filed.

My knowledge of the papers in front of the Court is limited to the titles of papers which have been listed on the public record in a Court document called “The Docket.”

Currently pending in front of the Court are:

1. The plaintiff’s motion to correct judgment because the judgement did not allow sufficient interest. I think this is the paper that was filed on November 4, 2009.

2. Cambridge’s motion for reconsideration of decision filed on November 3, 2009.

The parties have filed some papers since which amount to elaboration of these two motions.

On April 30, 2009, 11 volumes of transcript of testimony from various parts of the action were filed. This presumably is Cambridge’s accumulation of the record for an appeal.

Interfaith Youth Service Helps The Charles River White Geese

Marilyn has placed the following comment and materials on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page:

***********

Here's a video from the 3rd Annual Day of Interfaith Youth Service at the goose meadow, April 18, 2010. Thanks to all the DIYS volunteers and Alex Levering Kern, Executive Director, Cooperative Metropolitan Ministries, for their help to the White Geese and the geese's feathered friends here. They've made a big difference. Marilyn

Cambridge Machine offended by law obedience on the Charles

Bob La Trémouille reports:

An arm of The Cambridge Machine which calls itself some sort of streets coalition had a letter to the editor in the April 22, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle and in the on line edition. I have submitted the following in response.

Of possible interest is that the founder of this Streets Coalition is now officially employed by the City of Cambridge and that their office is located on the street front of an MIT dorm.


Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The letter objecting to MassDOT’s River Street and Western Avenue bridge repairs suffers from major omissions.

First, MassDOT is obeying the law governing the Accelerated Bridge Repair Program by restricting its planning to the bridges it is repairing.

Secondly, the writers and their friends are fighting for massive environmental destruction on the Charles River. Their demands are not restricted to these bridges and are not just for supposed traffic benefits in this area.

MassDOT is a breath of fresh air. I like seeing laws obeyed and the environment respected.

In the BU Bridge repairs, Cambridge’s destructive machine was very happy to see the Department of Conservation and Recreation violating the same laws the writers now want violated.

DCR, helped by silence of consent, kept the BU Bridge repairs and its needless environment destruction and animal abuse as secret as possible. They did this by conducting “public meetings” in Boston and in Kendall Square.

The destruction and violations of law include needless drainage construction in the animal habitat east of the BU Bridge and a needless doubling of area destroyed there. They would not provide amelioration for animals affected.

The machine was happy to have that behavior kept secret when the state was working for environmental destruction. Now a responsible agency is behaving well. The machine is distressed.

The real demands are for a small vehicle highway in Cambridge duplicating the small vehicle highway on the Boston side. The demands are environmentally destructive and dangerous to public safety.

The machine does not want to know about signs closing the Boston side at night because of muggings and rapes.

The machine supports destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges as part of highway construction. An excellent and large grove just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split is directly threatened.

Essentially virgin animal habitat at the MWRA plant is directly threatened. The animal habitat under and east of the BU Bridge would be further destroyed. The environmental outrage at Magazine Beach would be made worse.

Miles of placid riverfront throughout Cambridge would be savaged.

These unstated matters are yet another example of the reality hidden by pretty much non stop con games in Cambridge. The machine keeps telling Cantabridgians to fight for fancy buildings and ignore the destruction of water, river, trees and animal habitat.

MassDOT is a pleasant relief.

Day 392, Poison Fed Grass looks even worse.

1. Day 392 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — Red Sox crowd.
2. Poison Fed Grass looks even worse.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Day 392 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — Red Sox crowd.

Rush hour was quite busy at the Destroyed Nesting Area. The Red Sox are in town and a lot of people were driving and walking to the game.

For the first time, I had a bicyclist grab a flier passing me.

People were interested and concerned.

2. Poison Fed Grass looks even worse.

I walked through the environmental outrage at the Magazine Beach athletic fields and looked more closely at the introduced poison fed grass.

The grass varies in quality from one location to another. Some locations are nearly bare.

The bare stuff is clearly inferior to the native, environmentally responsible grass which has not yet been destroyed, at the top of the hill to the west of the bizarre athletic fields.

Some parts look quite good, but are they better than the native grass which does not and did not need poisons to survive? And does it make any sense whatsoever to destroy all that healthy, viable grass to introduce sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive?

I had an extended discussion with a woman exercising a Lab on the hill. Her comments without prompting agreed with what normal people have been saying for the past thirteen years. The hill could use some work. Working on the playing fields was silly.

She was quite shocked to learn of the plans to destroy the parking on the hill. We are dealing with incompetents who have contempt both for the environment and for the people using the environment. These continuing projects both destroy the environment and destroy access for normal human beings to the Charles River. First and foremost, these incompetents should be fired. Instead, the Cambridge Machine runs around spouting flat out lies that the incompetents are worthy of our respect.

Day 391 at the Destroyed Nesting Area; Magazine Beach “Improvements” Essentially Non Existent

1. Day 391, Marathon Crowd.
2. First view of “Improvements” at Magazine Beach — Good Stuff Essentially Non Existent.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Day 391, Marathon Crowd.

On April 19, 2010, I once again set up at the far side of the BU Bridge because the east side is blocked of for the needlessly destructive BU Bridge repairs. This prevents leafleting next to the Goose Meadow. Similarly, leafleting of cars is now impossible, but the main target has always been pedestrians.

People, as usual, were very nice. Quite a few friendly beeps from the cars.

Clearly, a significant percentage of the folks walking were returning to their hotel from the Boston Marathon.

There were a lot of local residents, and they were interested.

The last person I leafleted discussed the various items of destruction with me and told me he would call Cambridge City Councilor Seidel. I informed him that I have posted on this blog Seidel’s commentary providing his definition of “environmentalism.” I informed him as well that Seidel voted for the destruction at Magazine Beach. This happened when he was on Cambridge’s version of a Conservation Commission.

2. First view of “Improvements” at Magazine Beach — Good Stuff Essentially Non Existent.

The normal reaction of people in the past when they were told of coming “improvements” at Magazine Beach has always been that work on Magazine Beach made no sense. There never was any need to improve it.

The fences are down. It is now possible to walk the construction zone.

The most overwhelming impression is that nothing of value has been done.

Then, when you look around, you realize that a lot has been done, and it is all either bad or could have been done without massive destruction.

Magazine Beach is now firmly walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which hides the river from people using the playing fields, and starves the Charles River White Geese. The key bureaucrat has spouted “no intention to harm” for ten years, but explains that starving them, in his bizarre world, is not harming them, and he has publicly bragged of starving them.

The size of the playing fields has been significantly reduced by the massive drainage system to drain off the poisons needed by the introduced grass to keep from dying. The grass that was destroyed in this project survived for most of a century without poisons.

The playing fields have been rearranged, but you did not have to destroy to do that.

Then you realize that the area to the west of the construction zone has not been rebuilt.

It is impossible to distinguish between the two areas of grass: (1) the poison maintained stuff which was introduced in place of healthy environmentally responsible grass and (2) the healthy responsible stuff that has been there for the better part of a century and which is exactly the grass they destroyed.

The Bumpy Memorial Pond was introduced in the eastern end of the fields as part of the first destruction several years ago. It was intended to replace wetlands which were needlessly destroyed for the bizarre bushes. We always considered the Bumpy Memorial Pond bizarre because it was an artificially created pond feet from the Charles River with no connection.

The geese loved it. That may be the reason it has been destroyed. The pond has been filled in and it is now wetlands.

The wall of bizarre introduced bushes has been extended to wall off pretty much all of the Charles, vastly increasing blocking in the area near the Bumpy Pond and the small boat launch. That small boat launch is the only place clearly open for access from the Charles River. The massive increase of bushes is clearly designed to minimize the value of the poisoned grass to the Charles River White Geese.

Some people were playing on the softball fields. I do not know if they paid the $90 or so which is now required to use the fields even for pick up games.

Summary: reprehensible, stupid, a lot of destruction and less usable playing fields. Outrageous, but we are dealing with the City of Cambridge and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Cambridge Machine has no shame. The Cambridge Machine will be bragging.

Bridges: Urban Ring Phase 2, Charles River Bridges

Department of Transportation Secretary Jeff Mullan briefly spoke to the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Advisory Council on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, following a presentation by Clinton Bench, who I believe is the Department's Deputy Executive Director of Planning.

In response to a question about Department of Conservation and Recreation's Charles River bridges transferred to DOT, Mullen cited work on all the bridges the DOT's Accelerated Bridge Program is responsible for repairing. He specifically mentioned those to the north that are in the ABP as part of the Urban Ring.

(As we were told when the public process for the Urban Ring 2 ceased: the Urban Ring Phase 2 is still alive.)

My follow-up question to the Secretary then was, how did DCR manage to evade ABP controls on the BU and Anderson bridges and expand the footprints? Mr. Mullan said he would look into it and get back to me.

Marilyn Wellons

***********

Bob La Trémouille responds:

This issue of footprint is major with regard ongoing environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse by DCR and Cambridge.

The DCR and Cambridge go out of their way to harm animal life on the Charles River by whatever means they have at their disposal.

The purpose is to kill off all animals living or visiting the first ten miles of the Charles River because they have a vision: they want a dead world on the Charles River, as they and their predecessors have worked to create a dead world on our planet.

The footprint at the BU Bridge (I am not familiar with the Anderson Bridge problem) was illegally expanded as part of the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

The two have been heartlessly destroying the Charles River White Geese by destroying their habitat piece by piece.

The DCR is illegally installing a drainage system for the BU Bridge in the tiny meadow which is all that is undestroyed to the Charles River White Geese of their habitat.

Destroy, destroy, destroy, a little here, a little there, a lot of lying and false claims of sainthood, . . .

By contrast, a responsible entity, MassDOT is rebuilding drainage on the Western Avenue and River Street Bridges within the footprint of those bridges. And that is the requirement of the program under which they are working.

This destruction is a major part of the reason DCR and the Cambridge pols kept the meetings on BU Bridge planning as secret as they could from affected Cambridge residents.

This deliberate secrecy was the reason for the con games pulled by the Cambridge pols on the River Street and Western Avenue Bridge. They lied to the public with claims of "concern" by demanding that the responsible projects have public presentations in Cambridge while being very happy to keep the irresponsible BU Bridge project secret from Cambridge.

Response to support for state and Cambridge Charles River planners

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Last Thursday, March 25, 2010, The Cambridge Chronicle printed an op ed from the head of an entity called the “Charles River Conservancy” praising planners for their magnificent achievements on the Charles River. It was earlier published on line.

I submitted the following response. It was published on line today, March 31, 2010 and published in hard copy in the edition of April 1, 2010. Paragraphing was edited.

Letter: Response to support for state and Cambridge Charles River planners

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I disagree with the Charles River Conservancy’s praise for state and Cambridge Charles River “planning”.

The omissions were more important than what was said.

The CRC is active in ongoing destruction of the environment of the Charles River. It has widely poisoned the eggs of migratory waterfowl. It twice yearly destroys native protective vegetation on the banks of the Charles River.

I have seen members of the Boston Conservation Commission shocked at its destruction.

One key CRC member repeatedly used a chain saw on valuable riverfront trees until the Boston Conservation Commission stopped him.

The writer supports environmental destructiveness on the Charles River.

She gushes at plans to destroy hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

She conducted a “swim in” bragging about the destruction at Magazine Beach. She supported destroying the Magazine Beach wetlands and installing a wall of introduced bushes which block access between the river and Magazine Beach. She supports the ongoing dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach. The poisons keep alive sickly grass introduced after the destruction of healthy, native grass which survived the better part of a century. She is on the side of the ongoing, heartless animal abuse being inflicted on the beautiful, valuable Charles River White Geese.

She supports the construction of a small vehicle highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles which would duplicate an existing one on the Boston side. She has no problem with the massive environmental destruction of such a highway. The signs on the Boston side closing their version of that highway at night because of muggings and rapes do not deter her support.

She had no problems with the BU Bridge repair meetings being held in Boston and Kendall Square to keep the needless environmental damage and animal abuse in Cambridge secret from affected Cantabridgians.

She inflicts light pollution at the base of Charles River bridges at night.

She praises Cambridge and state “planners”. She praises 19th Century planners.

I support the environment. I oppose the planned destruction of all animal life visiting or living on the first ten miles of the Charles. I think these “planners” should be fired because of their flat out contempt for the natural environment which they are so determined to destroy.

I do not think Cambridge and the state should once again be proving the folly of environmental destruction which is destroying our world.

Con Game on the Cambridge Common

1. Introductory.
A. Invitation.
B. Reality.
2. The Cambridge Common, Sunday, March 28, 2009.
A. General.
B. Close Encounter with a Destructive Pol.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.

A. Invitation.

An individual with a record of fake environmental initiatives as part of The Cambridge Machine put out the following invitation:

******

Join the Leadership Campaign’s
Rally & Sleep-Out
Sunday, March 28th
Cambridge Common, Cambridge, MA

March to the State House
Call for 100% Clean Electricity in Massachusetts by 2020!
Monday morning, March 29th

All are invited to join any or all portions of this event

******

B. Reality.

The Cambridge Machine does a decidedly spectacular job using the standard techniques of Company Union organizations.

Company unions are created by management to give the impression of being unions while, in reality, suppressing the union movement.

They suppress the union movement by creating organizations that look like unions, getting people to join, and then using their fake union to suppress real union activity and, if possible, achieving anti-union goals.

When it comes to the environment in Cambridge, The Cambridge Machine aggressively creates these fake groups. They run around loudly protecting everything and everything EXCEPT the environment that The Cambridge Machine is destroying.

The destruction is aimed at destruction of the Charles River, destruction of Fresh Pond, destruction of Alewife, destruction of large numbers of trees, heartless animal abuse, and a lot of other really bad stuff.

But they love to talk about fancy buildings.

Essentially, they are keeping “trouble makers” contained and aiming followers away from anything and everything that could respond to the environmental destruction being achieved by The Cambridge Machine.

To the extent that well meaning individuals can be conned into assisting environmental destroyers at the State House or on the Cambridge City Council (eight proven, one too soon to tell), that much the better from their point of view.

The announcement of this gathering was the first I had heard of “The Leadership Campaign.” Typical, lovely name. The Cambridge Machine does a great job on lovely names.

2. The Cambridge Common, Sunday, March 28, 2009.

A. General.

The key time was 4 pm, a rally with speakers.

I showed up at about 3:40 pm and got a spot with an excellent view.

There were perhaps 15 expensive looking tents well aligned in rows on the Cambridge Common near Garden Street and Mass. Ave. There are three Common paths converging at that intersection. The tents and their occupants were located between the two paths nearest Garden Street.

The occupants were chit chatting among the tents.

I leafleted from 3:45 pm to 4:05 pm at the convergence of the two paths. I stopped at 4:05 pm because there was not enough action to justify continuing.

I would be happy to provide a copy of the flier. Please email at boblat@yahoo.com. This was the standard flier of Friends of the White Geese. One side addresses the destruction targeted at the Charles River; the other side addresses the ongoing destruction of the environment throughout Cambridge.

A number of people talked with me. The area most definitely was not quiet. It was just that by about 4:05 pm, it just did not seem to make sense to stay.

To the extent anybody I encountered asked particulars, I went into details as to my attempts to protect the Charles River and the City of Cambridge from The Cambridge Pols. I described the standard con from the Cambridge Machine.

The “demonstration” on the Cambridge Common most definitely looked like a part of the standard con. I went into details as to the techniques and about the ongoing environmental destruction.

As I left, a man came out of the group of tent dwellers carrying one of my leaflets. He strongly thanked me for the warning.

B. Close Encounter with a Destructive Pol.

As I left, I also noticed, illegally parked on Garden Street near Mass. Ave., Cambridge City Councilor (and most recent prior Mayor) Denise Simmons.

Denise Simmons is running for State Senate. She is clearly an environmental destroyer, and belligerently a heartless animal abuser on the Charles River.

I may have missed someone but I saw no other major political types.

That could explain who was behind this con game.