Earlier today, I passed on with analysis my letter to the Cambridge Chronicle responding to their on line report on fundraising which I consider just part of the ongoing fight by Cambridge and its friends to destroy the core Alewife reservation by conning people into defending a long shot part of the Alewife reservation. This is particularly distressing because Cambridge and its friends appear launched to strikingly multiply the totally inexcuseable destruction.

The game of Cambridge and its friends has been to fool well meaning people to fight one of their usual Don Quixote bouts rather than working to defend the key core Alewife reservation from totally inexcusable destruction by Cambridge and its friends.

I just found a copy of the February 2, 2012, issue of the Cambridge Chronicle, which had their report on fundraiser buried on page 9. The language used implied that the long shot being defended against is superior to the irreplaceable forest destroyed.

The key language on line is: “The 7-acre silver maple forested area is a habitat for rare animals and birds including otter, deer, coyote, fox and nearly a hundred bird species – some of which require both uplands and wetlands. The concert celebrated this valuable resource.”

Frankly this language is also applicable to the area these “activists” are happy seeing destroyed. I definitely think the area they are destroying is more valuable because, in addition to these factors, it includes Little River.

The real difference, as is normal in the rotten situation in Cambridge, is that the Cambridge machine is destroying the core Alewife reservation, and it is a private developer in the area they claim is so great. The Cambridge City Council constantly lies that it is holier than thou on environmental and civil rights matters. That is a flat out lie, and this game of irresponsibly maneuvering people away from their irresponsible destruction is just part of it.

That flat out lie makes the Cambridge City Council vulnerable to attacks by knowing people who are aware of how irresponsible nine councilors are. The exposure in the last election of the environmentally second worst councilor as “reprehensible” with regard to the civil rights case of Malvina Monteiro could very possibly have led to his firing by the voters.

The fundraiser with the usual failure to mention the important stuff is another factor in the fight to destroy the core Alewife reservation. Simultaneous with the destruction, the owner of the parking lot where the flood storage should go is building, apparently without the flood storage that should be there rather than destroying the core Alewife reservation.

Another interesting factor is the presence of Ellen Mass in this non “Alewife” group which has apparently replaced “Friends of the Alewife Reservation.” Ellen Mass’s credit appears on the two photos printed in the hard copy. Thus the admission continues. Ellen Mass has succeeded in destroying the core Alewife reservation by loudly claiming to be defending Alewife and by duping people into this Don Quixote fight. She has publicly bragged about the destruction. She, at least judging by that photo credit, is continuing with the “defense” group which no longer claims to be defending Alewife.

Mass led the fake Alewife group and has publicly praised the destruction. That praise totally discredits her and her friends claims of concern for the environment in their Don Quixote Silver Maple fight.

So thanks to the Chronicle for moderating key language in the later printing. People who are thinking about what they are doing, and responsible, will change upon reflection.Charles River White Geese Blog

1. General.
2. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Summary.


1. General.

The following letter has been submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle in response to a series of versions of a report by the Chronicle on a fund raiser concerning private property at the Alewife reservation.

The most recent version of the report is at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1341770199/Concert-raises-money-for-the-Silver-Maple-Forest#ixzz1m7JJl1QC. It is quite a bit shorter than the other versions. Sorry. This is the best I can see.

2. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I appreciate your “Silver Maple Forest” report.

For nearly 15 years, a group “defending” Alewife told people who were concerned about Alewife to protect the “Silver Maple Forest.” That group said not to look at the inexcusable and in fact downright bizarre environmental destruction being accomplished at Alewife by Cambridge and by Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation, which owns the core Alewife reservation.

A few months ago, these entities accomplished the first stage of destruction. They bragged about “flood storage” their destruction cannot achieve. They brag about needed flood storage which can be achieved on the other side of the adjoining CambridgePark Drive.

The destruction so far can protect against two year floods (the worst flooding in any two year period). Alewife has seen two fifty year floods in the past twenty years.

The needed protection can be provided by taking the massive parking lot across CambridgePark Drive or by further destruction of the reservation. The flood protection should be placed under office buildings whose construction in that parking lot is imminent. The alternative is a doubling, tripling or more of destruction of the irreplaceable woodlands.

The key “activist” has gone from “defending” Alewife to bragging about the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. The “defending” group which is now visible does not even use the word “Alewife” in its name.

Your report describes “Silver Maple Forest” in glowing terms. Those glowing terms describe the destroyed area and the phase 2 destruction as well. Total public destruction will easily be much larger than the destruction at this privately owned long shot at “Silver Maple.”

If Cambridge had a responsible city government, that massive parking lot would be taken by eminent domain and used for the flood protection needed. The imminent office buildings would be built on top of the flood storage. The inexcusable strip mine which replaced an irreplaceable woodlands would be given back to nature to undo damage which should never have been done.

Instead we see people fighting Don Quixote fights who do not want to see the bizarre and totally avoidable destruction a hundred or so feet away. They destroy their own credibility by their indifference.

Cambridge and its friends keep the good guys “out of trouble” by having them chase their tails. They keep up the lie that they are environmental saints. How dare you object to totally wasteful environmental destruction. Cambridge pols sound great!

3. Summary.

Please note that the Cambridge Conservation Commission will be discussing the office project slated for that massive parking lot on the fourth floor of City Hall Annex at Broadway and Inman Monday, February 13, at 7:15 pm.

The bragging about the destruction was done by Ellen Mass to a non profit which calls itself “Greenport” on January 18 at the church on the corner of Brookline Street and Putnam Avenue. The related “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has spent years telling people who are concerned about Alewife to go to the fake Friends group.

Since the destruction of the core Alewife reservation the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has started strongly denying that Alewife is any proper interest of their group.

The “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has joined the falsely named Charles River Conservancy in creating a group for Magazine Beach which stinks of the “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” group.

The “Friends of Alewife Reservation” now seems to have disappeared with its success in destruction of the core Alewife reservation.Charles River White Geese Blog

Ellen Schloss has posted a link on the facebook page at http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1402556&format=comments#CommentsArea to the Boston Herald’s report on one of the typical non profit’s proposal for the Boston Esplanade on the south side of the Charles River and for the Charles River Dam area.

The non profit claims to love the peace and the beauty of the Charles. The Boston Herald link very prominently shows their proposal for a Ferris Wheel dominating the skyline at the Charles River Dam overwhelming the Museum of Science.

And the non profits, as a group, will keep on telling you how lovely they are. And their proposals are always called "improvements" or the like.Charles River White Geese Blog

Next Monday, February 13, 2012, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will consider a “Request to Amend Order of Conditions” with regard to 150 and 180 CambridgePark Drive.

This is the office project that was delayed because of the Great Recession.

This office project is on top of the parking lot where flood protection for the Alewife Reservation should be placed, across the street from the Cambridge/DCR created strip mine that used to be an irreplaceable forest.

If those buildings go there without the flood protection under them, the Cambridge Pols will have “no choice” but to finish the destruction of the Alewife Reservation for flood storage.

In related news, the falsely named “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” no longer is visible in “fighting to save” the nearby “Silver Maple Forest”, the privately owned property subject to the usual Don Quixote type fight to distract concerned people from the real action, the fully savable Alewife Reservation. The "non profits" are using a different name now and no longer apparently even use the word “Alewife.”

Alewife is fully savable except for the related non profits, fake groups normal in Cambridge, MA, politics which regularly control the population and achieve a lot of environmental destruction.

So a “reprehensible” city government (to quote that civil rights judge) looks like it is getting its destruction, and North Cambridge, Arlington and Belmont neighbors will not find out they have been chasing their tails until it is “too late.”

Oh, and the Cambridge City Council keeps up its very much non stop efforts to “save the world” just as long as the voters do not look at them destroying Cambridge and related environment.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting is of no real significance. The key forum is the Cambridge City Council, which is protected by the massive Cambridge Pol machine.

The core Alewife reservation can still be saved. The acres of destruction which occurred in the last few months can be undone by allowing nature to restore itself.

Those buildings go up without the flood storage and the Alewife reservation will be gone.

Oh, and the “Silver Maple Forest”? A long shot at best, made even longer by support for destruction of the core Alewife reservation.Charles River White Geese Blog

We had a disagreement with the Cambridge Chronicle on the handling of one of the three orders considered by the Cambridge City Council concerning the employment situation of the Cambridge City Manager and the replacement of the retiring Cambridge City Clerk.

My resolution of the employment situation is to fire the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro and hire the retiring Cambridge City Clerk to act as acting Cambridge City Manager pending international search for a new City Manager.

The third motion, which passed, appointed Donna Lopez, City Clerk Drury’s current number 2 person as Interim City Clerk because of the anticipated late February retirement and to empower the two to set up an orderly transition.

Two motions (1) to establish procedures with regard to the City Manager’s expiring contract and (2) with regard to establishing procedures to replace the City Clerk were initiated by Cambridge City Councilor Kelley and were delayed to last Monday’s meeting (2/6/12) by Councilor Davis under her powers under the city charter.

Kelley was out of state on Monday and no other councilor brought up the orders. The two orders, in accordance with the Charter provision, were automatically placed on file.

The Monteiro decision concerned the City Manager’s firing of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. Very strong communications were written by a panel of the Appeals Court and by the Superior Court trial judge, plus there was an award of $3.5 million PENAL damages by the jury in addition to $1.1 million real damages. The judicial comments clearly established grounds to fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.Charles River White Geese Blog

1. Response to Sea Island Defense.
2. Your Editor.


1. Response to Sea Island Defense.

Dear Mr. La Trémouille,

Thank you ever so much for picking our concerns up on your blog. I am the retired Altamaha Riverkeeper®, well at least almost retired. Having said that, if you care about our wildlife and natural resources you can never totally retire. Before I became the Altamaha Riverkeeper® I worked as a blue crab commercial fisherman on the coast of Georgia for almost 25 years until we formed the Altamaha Riverkeeper®, Inc. (ARK) in 1999. We formed the ARK because the State of Georgia had lost site of what our natural resources mean to us as a people. Without going into a long writing spell you can just about figure the rest out for yourself. Just wanted you to know a little bit about us and how much we appreciate your assistance.

Again, thank you very much,

James Holland

P.S.
To learn more about the Altamaha Riverkeeper® go on their web site at www.altamahariverkeeper.org.
To learn more about me and what I care for go on my web site www.jamesrhollandphotography.com/blog.

2. Your Editor.

The parallels between the two situations are striking, except that our enemies have very bad records both on the Charles and in the not too far away Alewife reservation where they indulged in large scale environmental destruction and mass animal killing for "flood storage" the project could not deliver and which could be achieved across the street under a parking lot.

The non profit in that situation was a fake group which fits patterns of fake groups which are associated with Cambridge.

And thank you for friending the Charles River White Geese.Charles River White Geese Blog

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?
2. Editor’s Reply.

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

A good friend posted the following question on facebook in response to our partial posting of the funders of the Charles River “Conservancy.”

*********

Robert, I am not clear what this posting is about! Plz clarify in simple terms. The White Geese at the Charles R extremely important 2 me.--thank u Robert!

2. Editor’s Reply.

This posting is a direct response to the posting concerning Sea World below.

The Sea World destruction very closely fits the attacks on the Charles River.

There are a lot of “non profits” whose behavior is destructive.

Some, like the Charles River “Conservancy” are blatant falsehoods. This group is belligerently destructive of the environment. There is a very real problem with groups claiming to be holier than thou who really are not.

The very big problem is their fooling well meaning people into hurting the cause they claim to stand for.

Like so many activists in Cambridge, it is impossible to tell the difference, at face value, from the knaves and those who have been fooled.

One way to try to do so is follow the money.

The good guys will run away from groups running false colors. The bad guys will stay there.

Another interesting point in the funders are the educational institutions which benefit greatly and have been quite active in environmental destruction on the Charles River. These institutions very consistently lie to their students about their environmental destructiveness. Their false colors are a very major factor in fooling well meaning people into destroying the environment.Charles River White Geese Blog

The following is a partial list of nonprofits contributing to the environmentally destructive and falsely named Charles River Conservancy.

This is taken from an attachment to a Fall 2011 fundraising letter bragging, among other things about their fight for a new small vehicle highway on and in the Charles River on the Cambridge side. This major initiative (and not mentioned any more than they can help) would destroy hundreds of healthy trees, wetlands, and animal habitat including major portions of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

The CRC’s highway construction has been rejected as environmentally destructive in a joint report by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The CRC’s list is preceded with the comment: “We are grateful to our corporate sponsors and to the foundations who have supported us over the last 18 months.”

VERY prominently displayed at the top of the list are the following logos:

The Boston Foundation
Intersystems
WilmerHale
Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Bank of America
Fidelity Investiments
Converse

The first two groupings are:

*********

Visionary

Anonymous
George H. and Jane A. Mifflin Memorial Fund
Harold Whitsworth Pierce Charitable Trust

Rejeuvenator

Bilesikian Family Foundation
Elizabeth Taylor Fessenden Foundation
Mahoney’s Garden Center
National Grid Foundation
REI
Sanoli Aventis/Genzyme

*********

Elsewhere on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University and the New England College of Optometry.Charles River White Geese Blog

The following link has the stench of the environmental destruction on the Charles River, right down to “non profits” fighting for environmental destruction.

http://www.protectthemarsh.org.

The title is “Leading Nonprofits Join Sea Island in Destroying Critical Habitat in Marsh Buffer.”

The Charles River Conservancy is lying with its name, but the stench is the same and it is by far not the only actor using “non profit” status. I have its publication of its contributor list.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation is standing up to the small vehicle highway outrage on the Charles River. It seems to have roped the Department of Conservation and Recreation into a responsible position on that highway but DCR and Cambridge are very, very destructive on their own.Charles River White Geese Blog

Archie Mazmanian comments:

Yesterday's (2/5/12) NYTimes Sunday Review section features "Why We Love Zoos" by Diane Ackerman. Here's the closing paragraph:

"What a lonely species we are, searching for signals of life from other galaxies, adopting companion animals, visiting parks and zoos to commune with other beasts. In the process we discover our shared identity. We flock to zoos for many reasons, not least to shed some of the burden of being human."

Zoos are indeed great places to go to. But so is our jewel of the Charles River where for many years we - and especially our children - could enjoy the Charles River White Geese in what ha d developed into a seemingly natural habitat. There were no bars or cages. We did not interfere with the Goose Ghetto, respecting their privacy. But we shared the Charles River with them in mutual respect. Will the Goose Ghetto be restored? Will the destructive vegetation along the banks interfering with the CRWG use of the Charles River be eliminated? Will we once again reside in harmony with the CRWG?

Imagine 50 or a 100 years from now yet another misguided governmental effort to eliminate some other Charles River fauna. Perhaps these government officials might think: "Who remembers the CRWG?"

Let's not forget.Charles River White Geese Blog

I did a double take on reading the report of the Cambridge Chronicle on Monday night’s Cambridge City Council meeting.

We reported that two of the three motions concerning the future of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Clerk were delayed until the next meeting by Councilor Davis’ exercise of her rights under the Cambridge City Charter.

The only motion to pass was the one appointing Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk given the stated intention of City Clerk D. Margaret Drury to retire at the end of February. The motion authorized the two to establish transition procedures.

The Chronicle, on page 2 of yesterday’s (February 2, 2012) edition reported that the motion passed which established procedures concerning the future of the Cambridge City Manager. I have not checked, but it is likely the on line equivalent is the same.

The conflict in the reports was a matter of distress to me because the council, by voting to suspend its rules after I left the meeting, could have brought the two “charter righted” orders up and passed them.

I have checked the on line report of the City Clerk and determined that my report is correct.

The report is at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/PolicyOrderList.cfm. The orders “charter righted” are orders 4 and 5. The order passed is motion 6.Charles River White Geese Blog

Last night, January 30, 2012, the Cambridge City Council had in front of it three proposed actions with regard to the Cambridge City Manager, Robert Healy, and with regard to my choice for acting city manager, Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

The three motions were:

1. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to start looking for a new city clerk in light of her impending retirement, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33957.

2. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to set up review of the Cambridge City Manager’s status and to discuss his intentions with regard to another contract with him, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

3. Councilor Maher’s motion to appoint Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk in light of Ms. Drury’s anticipated retirement on February 29, 2012, and to authorize Drury and Lopez to plan the transition, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33977.

Councilor Kelley’s motions were deferred to the next meeting by Councilor Davis’s exercise of her rights under the Cambridge Charter.

Councilor Kelley informed the City Council that he would not be attending next Monday’s meeting but would be amenable to a special meeting earlier than that with regard to the election of the mayor (that city councilor who functions as the chair of the city council and school committee).

Councilor Maher’s motion seemed to pass without negative comment although there were comments from the the councilor sitting as the chair (Councilor Reeves) that confused me.

Donna Lopez is highly qualified to succeed Margaret Drury as Cambridge City Clerk.Charles River White Geese Blog

1. Introduction.
2. Ellen’s suggestion.
3. Editor’s response.
4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.


1. Introduction.

Earlier today, I reported that the Cambridge, MA, City Council seems to be in the process of starting the process of determining whether they will rehire the Cambridge City Manager.

My evaluation is that they should, long ago, have obeyed the directions of the courts and fired him. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-cambridge-ma-usa-city-council.html.

This should link to my YouTube posting on this matter dating back to August 15, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

2. Ellen’s suggestion.

Ellen responded on facebook:

bob you would make a super city manager - have you thought about it?

3. Editor’s response.

Thank you very much.

Regrettably, we are talking about employment by the Cambridge City Council whose record is strikingly antithetical to the pious claims of sainthood which are very much non stop from the members and their massive machine.

I believe very strongly in what they claim to stand for.

That is a very major point of disqualification.

4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

My choice for acting city manager is Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

Margaret Drury is highly respected in the City of Cambridge for good reason. She runs her office well and efficiently. She would be a breath of fresh air.

It is rumored that she is considering retirement at the end of January 2012.

My posting on firing the Cambridge City Manager is dated August 2010. If Cambridge had a responsible city council, a very clean replacement of Healy could have occurred with permission of Court, before the Appeals Court decision.

I do not know just how badly the extreme irresponsibility of the Cambridge City Council has messed things up by failing to act.

I am of the strong opinion, not having discussed anything with Margaret, that finishing off her career as Acting City Manager while the City Council conducts the usual international search would be a major coup by which she could top off her career and probably increase her pension.

I would hope that it can still be maneuvered.Charles River White Geese Blog

Order number O-5 from the Cambridge City Council’s agenda for this coming Monday evening, January 30, 2012 may be read at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

City Councilor Craig Kelley is starting the process of considering whether or not the Cambridge City Manager should be reappointed.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have expressed interest in implementing the decisions of the Appeals Court panel (“ample evidence [of] outrageous actions”) and the Trial Court Judge (“reprehensible”) and Jury ($3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages) in Monteiro v. Cambridge.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have suggested the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension in implementation of these very strong judicial communications with regard to City Manager’s Healy’s destruction of the life of department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.Charles River White Geese Blog

I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at dusk today, January 24.

All of the staging was gone from under Memorial Drive. No offices, no vehicles, nothing was left THERE.

There were three vehicles left in the Destroyed Nesting Area east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. One small truck was left next to the BU Bridge in the northern portion of the cleared land. There were two other small vehicles all the way in at the eastern end of the northern area, the area which was quite simply not needed and which did great environmental damage. There were some smaller items in the area around the two vehicles.

Many members of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese were grouped between the two vehicles and the big tree they usually huddle under. There were geese resting in the staging / construction zone south of the two vehicles.

I also saw some White Geese in the Charles River and in that portion of the Goose Meadow next to the Charles River but also next to the 50 foot wasteland created for the BU Bridge work. That wasteland was empty south of the parked small truck.

The western side of the BU Bridge still had two large machines on the sidewalk but, while I watched, a bicycle was operated on the sidewalk between the two machines and the Charles River.

The fencing along the BU Bridge side of the Destroyed Nesting Area has been replaced, as has the fencing on the western side of the bridge. The new fencing was identical on both sides, vaguely historical in nature. The new fencing on the western side was extremely close in construction to fencing on that side which connected to it and which was next to the pollution plant. This older fencing had been there, perhaps, since the 80’s or so.

A very nice woman chatted with me while I was watching the White Geese. She strongly condemned the people who have been so heartlessly abusing the Charles River White Geese. We chatted about what kind of person would stoop to such behavior.

This is a normal human being. She is strikingly different from the tiny minority who are the Cambridge Pols. But my times at the Destroyed Nesting Area indicate that she is a normal human. It has always been refreshing to get away from the rotten situation which passes for the norm when you are dealing with the Cambridge Pols.

There are signs (perhaps my imagination) that nature is healing itself in the construction area. Clearly the rest of the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has seen its ground vegetation destroyed and it did not regrow. That indicates poisons, by, very clearly, the Charles River Conservancy.

My gut feel is that the work area will regrow if humans will remove their intrusions. Run the new fence in front of the entries illegally created by Boston University in 1999 and you might give nature a change to heal itself. The poisoned area might need more work although the tiny, very vital growth areas by the construction zone have seemed to expand on their own.

The Charles River Conservancy missed destroying these vibrant areas figuring the construction zone would kill them, and they survived.

Perhaps all that is needed is to leave nature alone and let nature heal the ravages of truly irresponsible government entities.Charles River White Geese Blog

1. Update on report.
2. Telling source.


1. Update on report.

I missed part of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”’s January newsletter.

My quote was based on introductory material only.

The following is quoted from later in the newsletter:

***********

The exchange of the 35 stakeholders at the Issue Forum held on December 15th and moderated by former Governor [ed: omitted to protect a possible victim] was very productive. State Rep. Marty Walz made a strong start by saying that the 2016 deadline that MassDOT claims exists, is a self-imposed policy and NOT a legislative mandate. That means there IS more time to carefully plan these bridges AND add underpasses where needed as this is a chance that will not come back for several generations.

***********

“Carefully plan” is more euphemistic garbage. Buried in the euphemism is the flat out lie that MassDOT and the DCR do not know what they are talking about.

The CRC/Cambridge highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks was clearly reviewed and rejected by MassDOT and the DCR in a separate report as environmentally destructive.

These destructive people want to lie to bystanders and get fooled bystanders to object and reverse a very responsible decision.

My prior report may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/former-governors-name-misused-by.html.

Representative Walz fits the Cambridge pol mode brilliantly although she lives in Boston.

Lots of lovely words come out of Walz. Lots of destruction is implemented by Walz.

2. Telling source.

This paragraph was pointed out by a person on the Cambridgeport list.

She previously put out severe misinformation on the same list on the Alewife destruction after I reported the initial part of the destruction.

The misinformation flatly and simply said that the initial destruction, although shockingly destructive on its own, was minor. She further communicated that no further destruction is coming.

This is the way the Cambridge Machine works.

The machine scratches each others backs and delays or misdirects the good guys by any tactic possible, anything to get their beloved destruction accomplished.Charles River White Geese Blog

It is very difficult for well meaning people to do business with the environmental destroyers floating around the Charles River and related target areas.

I have just gotten yet another communication from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” that a former governor chaired one of their gatherings concerning their highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks.

A number of key questions:

1. Was the former governor informed that the name of the organization, Charles River “Conservancy”, is a blatant lie because their aggressive destructive behavior is anything but the behavior of a “Conservancy”?

2. Was the former government informed that the state Department of Transportation (MassDOT) along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation have condemned their highway proposal for being environmentally destructive?

3. Was the former governors informed of the heartless animal abuse, particularly toward the Charles River White Geese, which is part of the proposal and a continuation of past attacks by the same people?

4. Was the former governor informed that the proposal includes destruction of hundreds of healthy, excellent trees?

5. Was the former governor informed of the decimation of the excellent 104 tree grove of trees at the Memorial Drive split which is part of their highway plan?

6. Was the former governor informed that the highway on the Boston side which their highway proposal duplicates has signs up warning people of muggings and rapes if people use that highway at night?

7. Was the former governor informed that the DCR

A. Has tried to get Obama moneys for the destruction of many of the same trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge;

B. That the DCR lied that all the trees they are destroying are sickly;

C. That the DCR’s filings with the City of Cambridge proved the sickly statements to be a flat out lies;

D. That the Cambridge filings, the proof of the flat out lie, was given to Governor Patrick;

E. And that the DCR does not seem to have gotten the Obama moneys for the tree destruction.

8. There have to be a whole bunch of other concepts relevant, but I think this is enough.

Key in the environmental destruction on the Charles and related areas is gross misbehavior by the people fighting for the destruction because, if they are honest, decent people will not work with them.

Nothing new here. Sounds like a former governor got conned by an entity flying under a false name seeking environmental destruction and working through key omissions.

I consider this pattern lying. I have seen too much of it, and I sympathize with the former governor. I strongly respect him. He should not be abused in this manner.Charles River White Geese Blog

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Here's link to a BU Today feature: "BU Bridge Project Nearly Finished - Two new lane configurations being tested"

http://www.bu.edu/today/2012/bu-bridge-project-nearly-finished/

providing diagrams of such configurations. Let's hope that winter weather does not cover the lane markings.

[Note: This was brought to my attention by a notice from the Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association.]


ED: We have done a series on this rearrangement. The most recent, with a summary of prior links may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/bu-bridge-work-archie-responds-to-globe.html.Charles River White Geese Blog

1. General.
2. Analysis of minutes.
3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

1. General.

The case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is a case in which the jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages against Cambridge based on its finding that the City Manager destroyed the life of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The judge’s opinion was scholarly and very effectively destroyed all arguments of the City of Cambridge, including the arguments raised in executive session. The trial judge’s key opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The key word used by the trial judge which summarizes the situation was “reprehensible.”

On appeal, the Appeals Court panel reacted to the appeal with disgust. It refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion, commenting that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The appeals court opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

There has been considerable press on the failure to release the minutes of the city council discussions of the case including administrative action by the Cambridge Chronicle.

In the Cambridge Chronicle's endorsement editorial with regard to the November city election, the Chronicle specifically lamented the inability of the voters to judge the behavior of individual councilors on Monteiro because of the suppression of the minutes of the executive sessions.

The minutes of the executive sessions are posted at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

2. Analysis of minutes.

The minutes, for almost all practical purposes, are useless.

The only meetings for which substantive comments are reported in any real detail are the last two meetings: the August 19, 2011 meeting at which the City Manager reported the Appeals Court decision to the city council and September 26, 2011 meeting at which a vote was taken on suppressing the minutes of the executive sessions.

In general, while, on occasion, there are talking points stated, who said what is not stated, nor is the extent to which there was meaningful support communicated of any of the stated positions.

The August 19, 2011 goes into apparent detail quoting the city manager’s report to the city council.

On September 26, 2011, the last executive session, there is report of the following vote:

*******

The question came on whether to uphold the Mayor’s decision that the Monteiro case is still pending such that disclosure of the executive session minutes may have a detrimental effect on the City’s legal position in the remainder of the case and therefore the reason for nondisclosure still pertains.

The roll was called and the results were as follows:

Yeas: Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Seidel, Councillor Toomey and Mayor Maher

Nays: Councillor Cheung, Councilor Decker, Councillor Reeves and Councillor Simmons

And the motion was passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 4.

*******

The coalition on either side of the vote is striking in particular for the vote of Councillor Kelley. Kelley has run in such a way as to give the impression that he is the only opponent to the Cambridge City Manager. But his vote could be considered the swing vote to keep things secret.

3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

The Cambridge Chronicle has reposted its analysis of the final two actions in the five related cases of which the most visible case was that of Malvina Monteiro. It is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x167854483/Details-exposed-on-Cambridge-discrimination-case#axzz1jr1zSjnr.Charles River White Geese Blog

Cambridge Day has posted on line the just release records of the Cambridge City Council’s executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case.

They may be read at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.Charles River White Geese Blog