Can we stop the DCR's destruction of the Urban Wilds along the Charles River Estuary,on the International North Atlantic Flyway, and protect the wildlife?
Thank you for sending the notice, copied below, to me, I will post it on my blog, asap, at http://votekathy.blogspot.com, and I will have it posted on the Captains Island Preservation and Protection blog, which I co founded with Marinly Wellons. I have beed advocating foreffective, meaningful and sustainable solutions to the Climate Change we are all expierencing, however, here in Cambridge most folks are satisfied with what some call green washing and others call wholly inadequate.
http://cipapa.blogspot.com/
In my opinion, the City still fails to take this isses seriously. Too many folks continue to make this a political bone of contention, and satisfy themselves bad mouthing the other party, the other organization, the other theory, and sign onto not only weak initives but schemes that are worse than the problem they seek to cure.
Some examples I have opposed are building the Urban Ring, ANOTHER highway thru Cambridgeport, Area 4, and East Canmbridge, whicu the so called environmentalists claim will be good for the environment. Another campaign I strongly oppose, and which I campaigned against when I ran for City Council 2 years ago, it bio fuels and ethanol which uses farm land to produce fuel. The City pushed thru a mandate for taxis to use this, its in the pubmps, and will be, if not already, be in heating fuel. This results in the contamination of water, including thew Gulf of Mexico, contributes to the rise in fuel prices, and contributes to the growing world wide food shortages and last years rice riots.
I am an advocate for pasive solutions, such as solar water and energy, with micro solar being locally manufactured and made available to homeowners, as well as joint ventures for/with large concerns, such as Hospitals, Universities, and commertial entities, be they for or free from profit.
One question I have for all of those who join groups, and/or preach "green energy" is why have you turned your backs on the environmental destruction going on right here in Cambridge, on our City Squares, in your very own neighborhoods, and along the Charles River? You want to make changes, and tell the State, Washington DC, Corporations and the world what to do? But you can't speak the truth to your elected City Council, nor oppose the DCR? If we cannot take care of our own back year, if we rubber stamp the destruction here, if we turn our backs at home, who outside Cambridge do yoy expect will take us seriously?
And, yes, I did convert to the energy effecient lightbulbs, the ones laced with Murcury, but, folks, where are the plans to deal with the fall out from recycling these time bombs?
take care, now, and do visit my blogs
Subject: [PSNA] announcement for distribution--in text and attachment
To: psna@portersquare.net
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:40 PM
==> HOW URGENT IS THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY? <==
· WHAT SHOULD THE CITY DO?
· WHAT SHOULD RESIDENTS DO?
After recognizing the existence of a climate emergency on May 11, 2009, the Cambridge City Council will hear from scientists about why climate is changing, what impacts to expect, and what response is needed at a Special Meeting of the Council at City Hall on September 24th at 5:30 pm.
Speakers will be Dr. Melanie Fitzpatrick of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Jill Stein of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Dr. Frank Ackerman of the Stockholm Environmental Institute at Tufts University and Dr. John Sterman of MIT Sloan School of Management.
If you want Cambridge to be a leader in responding to the global emergency,
—Come to the hearing on Sept. 24 to let the City Council know, and
—Please forward this notice to friends.
Background:
Ø Last March, more than 2,500 climate experts from 80 countries, assembled for an emergency meeting in Copenhagen to prepare for the UN Climate Change Conference in December, declared that
· "the climate system is already moving beyond patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived;"
· "the worst-case IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenario projections (or even worse) are being realized;"
· "there is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to a risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts;" and
· "there is no excuse for inaction."
Ø In December 2002, the City of Cambridge adopted a Climate Protection Plan with the goal of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) city-wide 20% below 1990 levels by 2010.
Ø Despite the efforts of City staff and others the City has fallen far short of this goal.
For more information see http://greencambridge.wikispaces.com/Calendar+of+Events
The meeting should appear on Cambridge cable TV channel 8.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Marjorie Decker Spins Her Tales: Fibs, Lies, and Barking At Civil Rights Laws
Now I hate dogs, now I love dogs....now dogs are a health threat, now dogs are therapudic...woof, woof, watch Majorie Decker spin her tales....
"I bring a dog to visit my father every week, because dogs are very therapudic."
{{Although Marjorie claimes to be confronted unexpectedly by the presence of my (service) dog at this City Council meeting, she is not. In fact, at the previous meeting she requested that I sit on the far side of the public seating section, which I agreed to do, because she wasn't taking her meds due to alergie testing. Then, at this meeting, I went right to the requested and agreed upon seating, thirty feet away from her. Notice how neither she, nor ken reeves tells the public that I had already 'accomodated" her "allergie." When I first filed the MCAD complaint, she claimed she was not alergic to all dogs, just dogs like mine. Huh? Can you believe it? Why didn't Marjorie explain how nicely I agreed to sit on the far side, and in the back, immediately upon her request?}}
In this video, in the second part, Marjorie Decker explaines how she brings a therapy dog to visit her father every week. However, in her reply to my MCAD complaint about her and ken reeves calling the police to try and expel me from a public City Council meeting, Marjorie Decker claims that the very presence of a guide dog poses a direct threat to the health of other people, equivelant to the health threat caused by cigarette smoke.
Pardon me, but if guide dogs are a health threat like cigarette smoke, why does Marjorie Decker bring a dog to visit her father? Wouldn't that pose a direct threat to his health?
Wait a min, in the first half, she claims that she has allergies to dogs. Oh, oh! Marjorie Decker, I think you are pulling someone's tail!
By the way, Ken Reeves, when an individual with a disability, accompianied by a trained service dog, attends a public City Council meeting, it is not an entitlement, it is a civil right. Segregation is NOT a reasonable accomodation.
The DOJ stated then, as now, that the City's "offer" to me of "reasonable accomodation" is neither reasonable, nor appropiate. In fact, it is a violation of law. Segregation, by definition, is discrimination, and is a fundamental basis for civil rights laws.
42 U.S.C. § 12182 : US Code - Section 12182
Chapter 126; Subchapter iii Section 12182
(a) General rule
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases
to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
(b) Construction
(1) General prohibition
(A) Activities
(i) Denial of participation
It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or
class of individuals on the basis of a disability or
disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or
through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a
denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to
participate in or benefit from the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an
entity.
(ii) Participation in unequal benefit
It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class
of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities
of such individual or class, directly, or through
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the
opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good,
service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation
that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.
(iii) Separate benefit
It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or
class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or
disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or
through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a
good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation that is different or separate from that
provided to other individuals, unless such action is
necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals
with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as
that provided to others.
(iv) Individual or class of individuals
For purposes of clauses (i) through (iii) of this
subparagraph, the term "individual or class of individuals"
refers to the clients or customers of the covered public
accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing or
other arrangement.
(B) Integrated settings
Goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a
disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of the individual.
(C) Opportunity to participate
Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different
programs or activities provided in accordance with this
section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied
the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities
that are not separate or different.
"I bring a dog to visit my father every week, because dogs are very therapudic."
{{Although Marjorie claimes to be confronted unexpectedly by the presence of my (service) dog at this City Council meeting, she is not. In fact, at the previous meeting she requested that I sit on the far side of the public seating section, which I agreed to do, because she wasn't taking her meds due to alergie testing. Then, at this meeting, I went right to the requested and agreed upon seating, thirty feet away from her. Notice how neither she, nor ken reeves tells the public that I had already 'accomodated" her "allergie." When I first filed the MCAD complaint, she claimed she was not alergic to all dogs, just dogs like mine. Huh? Can you believe it? Why didn't Marjorie explain how nicely I agreed to sit on the far side, and in the back, immediately upon her request?}}
In this video, in the second part, Marjorie Decker explaines how she brings a therapy dog to visit her father every week. However, in her reply to my MCAD complaint about her and ken reeves calling the police to try and expel me from a public City Council meeting, Marjorie Decker claims that the very presence of a guide dog poses a direct threat to the health of other people, equivelant to the health threat caused by cigarette smoke.
Pardon me, but if guide dogs are a health threat like cigarette smoke, why does Marjorie Decker bring a dog to visit her father? Wouldn't that pose a direct threat to his health?
Wait a min, in the first half, she claims that she has allergies to dogs. Oh, oh! Marjorie Decker, I think you are pulling someone's tail!
By the way, Ken Reeves, when an individual with a disability, accompianied by a trained service dog, attends a public City Council meeting, it is not an entitlement, it is a civil right. Segregation is NOT a reasonable accomodation.
The DOJ stated then, as now, that the City's "offer" to me of "reasonable accomodation" is neither reasonable, nor appropiate. In fact, it is a violation of law. Segregation, by definition, is discrimination, and is a fundamental basis for civil rights laws.
42 U.S.C. § 12182 : US Code - Section 12182
Chapter 126; Subchapter iii Section 12182
(a) General rule
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases
to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
(b) Construction
(1) General prohibition
(A) Activities
(i) Denial of participation
It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or
class of individuals on the basis of a disability or
disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or
through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a
denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to
participate in or benefit from the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an
entity.
(ii) Participation in unequal benefit
It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class
of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities
of such individual or class, directly, or through
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the
opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good,
service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation
that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.
(iii) Separate benefit
It shall be discriminatory to provide an individual or
class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or
disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or
through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a
good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation that is different or separate from that
provided to other individuals, unless such action is
necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals
with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as
that provided to others.
(iv) Individual or class of individuals
For purposes of clauses (i) through (iii) of this
subparagraph, the term "individual or class of individuals"
refers to the clients or customers of the covered public
accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing or
other arrangement.
(B) Integrated settings
Goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a
disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of the individual.
(C) Opportunity to participate
Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different
programs or activities provided in accordance with this
section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied
the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities
that are not separate or different.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Should The City of Cambridge Continue to Spend Taxpayer's Dollars Trying to Ban Guide Dogs From City Council Meetings?
Here a a video, where I discuss how "education" as a method to enforce civil rights of people with disabilities who use guide dogs, or service dogs, has failed.
One reason people file law suits is because other people refuse to obey the law, and choose to remain ignorant. here in Cambridge MA there is an actual effort to also ban accurate information about what Civil Rights laws are, and how to obey them.
Considering that in the Montero case, the City had an opportunity, early on, to settle the case, but refused to do so, and now the $$$$$ are up to a reported $4.5 million, should the City continue to refuse to settle the Podgers v City of Cambridge, et al, service dog in City Council case?
This should make howling good copy if it lands in federal court.
By the way, does anyone know of any other City Council in America that has banned Service Dogs? What is the MCAD's position on this? Segregation, by definition, is discrimination. Can Marjorie and Ken really segregate people with disabilities who use guide dogs? When will we ever learn?
One reason people file law suits is because other people refuse to obey the law, and choose to remain ignorant. here in Cambridge MA there is an actual effort to also ban accurate information about what Civil Rights laws are, and how to obey them.
Considering that in the Montero case, the City had an opportunity, early on, to settle the case, but refused to do so, and now the $$$$$ are up to a reported $4.5 million, should the City continue to refuse to settle the Podgers v City of Cambridge, et al, service dog in City Council case?
This should make howling good copy if it lands in federal court.
By the way, does anyone know of any other City Council in America that has banned Service Dogs? What is the MCAD's position on this? Segregation, by definition, is discrimination. Can Marjorie and Ken really segregate people with disabilities who use guide dogs? When will we ever learn?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Homeless In America? One of the Greatest Social Disasters of the 20th Century.
The Criminalization of the mentaly Disabled in America
I found this video to be very well done. Please take some time and watch this.
Whenever discussions about "the homeless" in Cambridge arises, one should understand that many individuals are UNABLE to fend for themselves. That is why they are called disabled. Not everyone who is mentally ill is disabled by their condition, but many are. Should we turn our backs on them, like we did in the Dark Ages, or should we work to craft programs to assist them to live as independently as possible, while providing them with the proper level of support needed?
Do you think mentally disabled people are doing their homless thing deliberately? Do you believe mental illness has something to do with "will power" or lazyness? Do you wonder why they don't just cut it out and get a job like everyone else? Perhaps compassion is what we need to understand that there but for God,......
I found this video to be very well done. Please take some time and watch this.
Whenever discussions about "the homeless" in Cambridge arises, one should understand that many individuals are UNABLE to fend for themselves. That is why they are called disabled. Not everyone who is mentally ill is disabled by their condition, but many are. Should we turn our backs on them, like we did in the Dark Ages, or should we work to craft programs to assist them to live as independently as possible, while providing them with the proper level of support needed?
Do you think mentally disabled people are doing their homless thing deliberately? Do you believe mental illness has something to do with "will power" or lazyness? Do you wonder why they don't just cut it out and get a job like everyone else? Perhaps compassion is what we need to understand that there but for God,......
Monday, September 14, 2009
Should the DCR be Permitted to Cut Down the Mature Urban Forrest Along Memorial Drive?
DCR Plans Destruction Of Hundreds Of Healthy Mature Trees On Memorial Drive, Along The Charles River In Cambridge
Mass State Department of Conservatopn and Recreation is progressing with it's plans to destroy HUNDREDS of healthy mature trees along Memorial Dr in Cambridge MA. Marilyn Wellons of CIPAPA and Friends of the White Geese is not your "ordinary" tree hugger. She has attended most, if not all meetings held by the DCR in their vain attempt to garner public support for their destructive policies. Not only has the DCR failed to get the public support it desired, but thousands have writen, signed petitions, and just plain voiced negative opinions during public testimony at pubmic meetings. Still, the DCR buldozes ahead, I am not exagerating, with the development of this precious riverfront resource.
Here is an exerpt from Marilyn's recent letter to the Cambridge Conservation Commission:
"In addition to protecting water quality, the Wetlands Protection Act, WPA, charges the Commission with protection of all habitat in wetland and associated areas, not simply habitat of rare or endangered species. Please note, then, that this project does not restore habitat critical to the health of our metropolitan area. Rather, it destroys it. Memorial Drive here, now, is indisputably habitat to hawks, small mammals, waterfowl and other birds, including migrants. Its mature trees and woody and herbaceous plants from the river to its northern side provide food and shelter for them. The plants beauty and shade constitute human habitat essential for our physical, mental, and spiritual re-creation. Their photosynthesis sequesters carbon from passing cars and improves the air for all. The trees and smaller plants along the shore and banks also prevent erosion. One, Amorpha fruticosa, is used elsewhere in the United States for the erosion control that is central to water quality here as well. The discussion of this plant at 3.3 Invasive Species is more than disturbing. A. fruticosa holds the bank for free. The DCR will eradicate it. Resprouts from the deep-growing roots that make it so valuable for erosion control will be treated with Rodeo. On its face this plan is contrary to the WPA."
Here is Marilyn's comment...
"The DCR is not content with stewardship of a mature landscape on the Charles. It is hungry for projects to serve its own bureaucratic needs and its design-development constituents. It will devour that landscape to get a project, as here."
Estimates of $6 to $8 millions of taxpayers money will be wasted on this wanton destruction of habitat. It is ironic, considering that the DCR recently cried poor when they abruptly closed 21 of 27 public swimming pools around the state in Mid August, in the midst of a hot humid heat wave. The pools shut down were in Lowell, Lawrence, Everett, Somerville, Brighton, Brocton, Worchester, Springfield, So Hadley, among others.
Here I am, answering questions at the City Council candidates forum
Here I am, speaking at the candidates forum sponsored by the East Cambridge Planning Team and the League of Women Voters at the Marlowe Hotel September 9, 2009.
I qant to thank Roy Bercaw for this video.
Can We Trust Elected Officials To Know What Clean or Green Energy Is?
This video speaks for itself. I hope everyone begins to question the non-sustainable, "Green Energy" solutions being advocated by some folks whth a limited, narrow focus, lacking in the wider view of "how does this affect the environment?
Plese note the debate re "clean coal." I would also raise the issue of using farm land do "grow" fuel, which has the nasty, unintended conseqquense of contaminating water, driving up the cost of fuel, and contributing to the world wide food shortage and rice riots. This is why I whole-heartedly oppose bio-fuel economics.
T H I N K
Always ask this question...What makes this green? What is the downside? Who makes money on this scheme?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Is Segregation of the Disabled Different Than Segregation Based on Race or Religion?
GU Student Sues Popular D.C. Bar After Wheelchair Incident
posted 11:44 pm Wed September 09, 2009 - WASHINGTON from ABC 7 News
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0909/657848.html
Taylor Price, a Georgetown U student who uses a wheelchair since a spinal cord injury 5 years ago, claims he was discriminated against when he tried to head for the piano to enjoy the music with his friends. The manager at the bar insisted he "sit in the corner" because he presented a "safety hazard" to the bar.
Here in Cambridge, City Councillor Marjori Decker, and Ken Reeves want to ban people with disabilities who are accompianied by service dogs to a seperate room, where they can "watch City Council meetings on TV."
Do folks see this as unlawful segregation, or as a good way to "accomodate people with disabilities? What does Federal Civil Rights laws say about segregation? In fact, opposing segregation as a "solution" is the very basis of Federal Civil Rights law.
Price has filed a law suit, and I have filed a complaint with the MCAD, because we believe we should not be excluded from the full and equal enjoyment of the activities in question. What do you think? Is it segregation to exclude PWDs from some areas where other members of the public are allowed?
How would you feel if we told African Americans that they had to sit in the corner, or watch City Council meetings on TV in a seperate room? Woulkd you see that as segregation? Or perhaps we should have a seperate seating section for Jews? I wonder if Michael Muehe, the City's ADA coordinator would agree that wheelchair users pose a safety hazard, and agree to their segregation?
Why has the current City Council not addressed this issue? Will it end up like the Montero case, costing Cambridge taxpayers millions of dollars? I have "won" probable cause, and prevailed against the City's appeal, yet the City refuses to settle. And what am I aslking? I am not asking for millions of dollars, I am asking for the City to obey the Civil Rights Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, otherwise known as the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Service dogs should be welcome at all public meetings, especially City Council meetings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)