BURY MY HEART AT THE SULLIVAN COURTHOUSE: A Dispatch From The Cambridge Zoning Wars

We started out small in numbers.

That’s how change often begins; first with a few diehard believers who loudly articulate the concerns of those who suffer and fret in silence. Our collective voice was easily ignored in those early days, but eventually, after far too many meetings, forums and protests, our message began to gain traction and resonance.courthouse

And then we had a real battle on our hands.

No longer could the reality of the problem be ignored, no longer could critical thinkers remain disengaged. Not when citizens were growing vocal as well as angry, frustrated by their elected leaders’ seeming inability (or disinclination) to protect and defend this city they swore to serve. Frustrated as well by city roadways growing ever more clogged, city neighborhoods growing ever more alien and congested, and city agencies and a Planning Board growing ever more deaf to the pleas of the city’s residents.

Meanwhile, apologists for the status quo scrambled to defend and protect a system that demonstrably worked against the best interests of those who live in our city, especially those most vulnerable to gentrification. In bursts of media-savvy sound bites they shielded their opposition to anything that might hinder Cambridge’s unbridled runaway development. In almost knee-jerk defensive attacks they accused us of “Nimbyism” and of being “Anti-Development.”

If the history of these struggles is ever recorded, it will be clearly seen that those who fought for more vigilance and planning as we grew our city were more concerned with what happened on our watch than in our backyards!

And now the genie is out of the bottle. 

City councilThis last year our numbers have grown substantially and we have helped elect two new members to the City Council (see front row left, first and second); councilors who share our concerns and who are asking their fellow councilors to re-think their views and votes of the past, and to recast a system put in place to serve a Cambridge that once needed a shot in the arm to grow, but was now in danger of getting seriously ill from an overdose of that same medicine.

After years of living with a system that gave critical development oversight to non-elected entities: city agencies whose mission was to facilitate development and a Planning Board that refused to believe it had the power to say “No!” we are on the cusp of change. Councilor Dennis Carlone has proposed a zoning change that would give the City Council final approval—temporarily, until a new Master Plan can be developed—for all projects 50,000 square feet or larger that require special permit review.

If you care about the future of Cambridge or the future of our neighborhoods, or just believe you have an obligation to leave Cambridge a better city than when you found it, you need to raise your voice and lift your pen. You need to tell the city council to vote for, to accept, and to USE—like a mighty hammer!—the power put in their hands if they enact the Carlone Petition.

You also need to voice your displeasure should they refuse to enact the Carlone Petition and effectively kill THE ONE SINGLE WEAPON the City Council could use to defend us against three mammoth, neighborhood-altering developments.

No matter how much they protest there are better ways to fix the system, or that the Carlone Petition would take up too much valuable council time, creating a polarizing political situation, the simple truth is they have NO OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS before them IF they wish to do their jobs correctly, acting to serve and protect Cambridge’s neighborhoods and its citizens.

So much depends—including the makeup of the next City Council, one might think—on whether they have the wisdom and courage to enact, and take up, the Carlone Petition.

We may have started out small in numbers, but wait till they see how we’ve grown!

—————————————————-

If you see this in time, please plan to attend the City Council meeting on Monday, September 8th, 5:30 in the Attles School Committee Room at CRLHS, entrance on Broadway.  

Paul Steven Stone is a founding member of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, which for the last three years has been struggling to raise the alarm about Cambridge’s runaway development, and to give voice to those who fear for the loss of our sense of community, quality of life and diversity of population. To find out more about the Cambridge Residents Alliance, go to: CambridgeResidentsAlliance.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bowling Boys Scored For Insider Trading

Dorchester, MA—Being accused of insider trading apparently doesn’t do much for your bowling game. Just ask Sal Papsi and Lenny Michaels, both amateur bowlers, and both recently charged in the federal indictment now known as Bowling Gate.bowlers

Papsi, who ordinarily scores over 225 a game bowled an average 137 per game in last Sunday’s “Massachusetts Bowl-A-Thon and Hot Dog Dinner,” while his co-conspirator and teammate Lenny Michaels was even further off his game.

“It was all those f#@king reporters with their f#@king flash cameras and f#@king questions,” Michaels angrily explained. “I aint racked up a f#@king score in a f#@king tournament like this since I first f#@king peed on my shoes!”

Fresh off the heels of their widely publicized indictment of a group of amateur golfing buddies for insider trading, Federal Prosecutors predicted Bowling Gate would prove once and for all the U.S. government treats all criminals alike, banker or deadbeat, champagne-drinker or beer-guzzler, privileged class or working stooge. Prosecutors indicated they would next be investigating inner city pick up basketball games and a North End bocce league.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Prosecutor’s office said that six men, all of whom are members of the Holes-In-The-Ball-Gang bowling team, conspired to trade inside information and tips concerning the Brunswick Bowling Company. Investigators quoted a subpoenaed email from Mr. Papsi, reputed bowling team leader, as cryptically advising his friends to hurriedly buy up Brunswick stock when he wrote, “You boys better stock up on big blue if you want to score this weekend, know what I mean, wink, wink!”

Reacting angrily to the charges, Papsi declared, “Holy shitake mushrooms, I was telling the guys to buy some egg-sucking Viagra, for heaven’s sakes! We had a damn-blasted three day weekend coming up and most of those flatliners aint good for waking the dead more than one day out of three, if you know what I mean, Jayzuz H. Crisis!”

Further evidence allegedly has Sal, part-owner of Happy Valley Bowling Lanes, criminally informing his Holes-In-The–Ball-Gang about a recent uptick in business at Happy Valley Lanes due to recent shifts in Brunswick’s marketing strategy. Pressed to answer this charge, Papsi said, “Sure, Brunswick was offering two balls for the price of one; called it their two-in-hand program. Mother Mary, it was a really hot deal, so of course I advised my guys to stock up, long as they didn’t already have the balls.”

Prosecutors said the alleged stock information trading ring was led by Papsi and Michaels who were allegedly paid off by the rest of the gang with rounds of drinks, $2 lottery tickets and satin bowling jackets. Lawyers for Papsi and Michaels would offer no further comment until their clients returned from a beer run.

(Note: this is a re-posting of an earlier blog column that was accidentally erased; sorry for any confusion.P.S.S.)

“We tried to break up, but they wouldn’t accept that it was over.”

Dear Abby:

This is very painful to talk about, but I need some guidance. Last Tuesday a group of fellow Cambridge residents and myself tried to break off our relationship with our Planning Board, but they just wouldn’t listen. All evening we kept telling them they no longer held a place in our hearts, and that we felt betrayed by their falling in love with the developers they were supposed to protect us damaged heartfrom. But, alas, nothing we said seemed to penetrate the unfathomable depths of their minds. Our words were like cannonballs that turned into feathers on impact.

We told them we were sorry we had to break up; that we had loved them once and they had done a great job helping us recover from hard times. But hard times were over, speaker after speaker told them bluntly, and now we needed guard dogs to protect us from developers rather than lap dogs to lick their fingers.

Abby, we did our best to be sensitive to their feelings. We told them we still liked them and, rather than take away all their power to cram ugly, dense buildings into our neighborhoods, we were only going to take away projects 50,000 square feet or larger, which would then be subject to City Council approval. It was like saying we would still go out on dates with them, but they could no longer assume they’d be staying the night when the evening was done.

But apparently we were speaking to people who couldn’t understand our language. We would say, “You’ve done everything but roll over and play dead for developers, approving 49 out of 49 projects and never rejecting a single one.” To which they’d reply, “But nobody on the city council is qualified to make these decisions. We have a combined total of over 75 years Planning Board experience.” To which we would answer, “Yes, but you’re using that experience to undermine our quality of life, jam up our roads, and totally change the character and makeup of Cambridge’s uniquely diversified population.” To which they responded, “Yes, and the city council is just not qualified to take on those responsibilities.”

Abby, I wish I could have taken their little heads in my hands and shouted “Listen, folks, it’s over! We don’t love you anymore. We don’t even like you. It’s time we went our separate ways. And, please, take the Community Development Department, the Traffic Department and the City Solicitor with you!”

But it was all to naught, Abby. Not surprisingly they acted as though they would never let us go, voting against the Carlone petition and ignoring our pleas to be freed from this excruciatingly painful relationship.

Please, Abby, tell us what we can do to rescue ourselves and Cambridge from the grip of an overly possessive Planning Board while there’s still a Cambridge worth rescuing?

(signed)

Growing More Desperate Daily

————————————–

In case it’s not obvious from the essay, Cambridge is going through a period of runaway development aided and abetted (some of us believe) by a Planning Board seemingly dedicated to protecting the rights of developers, often against the wishes, rights and best interests of Cambridge’s current property owners. The Carlone Petition, initiated by City Councilor Dennis Carlone, seeks to strengthen the city’s vigilance against the approval of egregious large projects at a time when the city is undergoing a process to develop a Master Plan.

Ironically, this was the first petition in recent history the Planning Board firmly rejected. The score is now 49 to 1 and, in case you haven’t noticed, Cambridge is losing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A ROGUES GALLERY OF SPEAKERS

So here’s the question: does the position of Speaker of the Massachusetts House invite corruption or does it merely attract corrupt politicians?

SPEAKERSOr put another way: would former Speakers and convicted felons Charles Flaherty, Thomas Finneran and Salvatore DiMasi have put their careers and reputations on the line, risking prison and disbarment, had they not been inebriated on the hubris of Absolute Power that comes with the Speaker’s job?

As the saying goes: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

And now, over the last few weeks, we have witnessed our current House Speaker, Robert DeLeo, appearing as a shadow figure, or unindicted co-conspirator, in the corruption trial of the cabal DeLeoformerly in charge of that criminal enterprise known as the Massachusetts Probation Department.

In addition to helping his godson become the youngest Acting Chief Probation Officer in the Commonwealth’s history, Speaker DeLeo was cited by prosecutors for allegedly using the promise of lucrative patronage jobs to help win the Speakership in a tight race with Norwood Rep. John Rogers. Not surprisingly, many of DeLeo’s colleagues and leadership team immediately stepped up to defend the Speaker and denounce federal prosecutors. Also no surprise, not a single legislator who voted for DeLeo as Speaker after receiving access to Probation Department jobs, saw those jobs as a quid pro quo for their vote. Without any question, they would have voted for DeLeo as Speaker in any case. The fact they’d been given Probation jobs for their friends, relatives and supporters played no role whatsoever.

I believe them. But then again I also believe in Santa Claus and an unbiased Supreme Court.

Of course, if there’s a legislator dumb enough to admit he or she sold his vote, according to Massachusetts custom they’d be impeached on the grounds of criminal stupidity rather than for any ethical lapse.

The fact that legislators are so quick and vocal in defending DeLeo merely provides further evidence of the power and privilege accrued to the House Speaker. Whether you have legislative goals or a leadership position (and salary) to protect, none of that will be possible without the blessing, support, or good opinion, of the Speaker. Those shouting loudest in DeLeo’s support can expect to receive their just rewards in the old familiar ways of Massachusetts politics. Perhaps no longer with jobs for unemployed relatives, but you can bet there’ll be something under the House Xmas tree with their name on the box.

Of course, those defending DeLeo the loudest are probably the same legislators who stood up in 2011 to give a rousing round of applause to visiting former Speakers, Flaherty, Finneran and DiMasi.

Apparently, in Massachusetts politics, nothing deserves a standing ovation like heaping shame upon your office.

 

———————

To read more about former House Speaker Thomas Finneran’s role in the Probation Department scandal, go to “Can We Just Send Finneran The Bill? Please!”

 

To read satirical takes on the ‘Massachusetts Department of Patronage,’ see ‘Dear Whitey’ and ‘Mixing Jobs and Drinks at Joe’s Bar’

 

 

 

 

From The Secret Files of the Massachusetts Patronage Department (Formerly Known as the Mass Probation Dept.), Part 2.

April 27, 2007

To: John J. O’Brien, Commissioner

From: William H. Burke III, Deputy Commissioner

Re: Scouting “Talent” at Joe’s Bar

Dear JJ:

I’m writing this, admittedly in high spirits, after meeting at Joe’s Bar with two great prospects for Chief Probation Officer: Christopher Hoffman and Frank M. Glenowicz, both highly trained mixology Joe's Pizzaspecialists as well as all-around good guys.

I’ve known Frank and Chris for many years, both congenial bartenders and trusted employees at Joe’s Pizza in Northampton, where I more than occasionally drop in to conduct Patronage Department business with politically-connected types from the Central and Western regions of the Commonwealth.

You might ask why we would willingly give up two juicy plum positions that might be reserved for a state senator or a judge, and I would answer that these guys are absolutely fabulous at listening to hard luck stories and offering sage advice. They’ve been doing it for years across the dark oak of Joe’s bar, and I would expect them to easily translate their bartender’s insights and home-grown wisdom into valuable tools for a Chief Probation Officer. Haven’t we often wished that our CPO’s could listen to thugs, felons and thieves like a bartender without judging like a priest? Well, Frank and Chris are just the guys to take in the darkest of our clients’ stories without once copping an attitude.

I assure you these men will bring honor and tireless energy to our department, and credit to both of us at Patronage Department parties where they’ll be happy to mix up any drink you can find in the Bartender’s Bible.

Also, in keeping with Patronage Department policy, both men have serious political connections.

Sincerely,

Bill

William H. Burke III

Deputy Commissioner and ACDJ (Assistant Chief Dispenser of Jobs)

Massachusetts Patronage Department

Update:

Christopher Hoffman, former Acting Chief Probation Officer, Hampshire Superior Court (salary $58,041) was the first conviction in the federal corruption probe of the Mass Probation Department, receiving a sentence of 2 years probation for intimidating a witness. When last heard from, he was working as a manager on a potato farm.

Frank M. Glenowicz, Acting Chief Probation Officer, Franklin Superior Court (salary $92,038) testified under a grant of immunity that his father grew up in the same town as Burke and worked on a farm with Burke’s brother. He was handed his probation officer’s badge by Burke one evening in Joe’s Bar.

 Author’s quote: You can’t make this stuff up! 

To see “Dear Whitey,” FromThe Secret Files Of the Mass Patronage Department, Part 1, click here.