"Kelley has pushed for increased access to academic resources such as the library system." Are there some barriers to access to the Cambridge Public Library? One former Councilor wanted to build a bridge from CRLS to the new library. Do high school students have trouble finding their way to the next door library? The only barrier to libraries are desire on the part of the individual. There are libraries open to the public in every city and town in this area. Plus many colleges allow people into their libraries as well.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/1/craig-kelley-council-election/
Candidate Profile: Craig Kelley
By Nikita Kansra, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Harvard Crimson
Published: Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Showing posts with label Craig Kelley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Craig Kelley. Show all posts
November 1, 2011
January 4, 2010
Mass Ave Median Strip
At the North end of Cambridge
By Craig Kelley
At the North end of Cambridge, near the Arlington sign
A big chunk of concrete hides an old trolley line
And the neighborhood people like that arrangement just fine
On the street of the lifted median.
What is the median and why is it there
And why would the City take and lift it somewhere?
And why in the world would anyone care
About an old piece of concrete with a neglected air?
Perhaps we all care 'cause it's well understood
That the City's plan will result in no good.
We know that just crossing the street will be tough
And the driving will become terribly rough
With left turns and right turns and u-turns as well
Getting 'round town will be scary as hell.
We folks from North Cambridge lived through it all
We questioned the wisdom of City Hall
and waited in vain for the Council to call.
But we learned all too quickly we were in it alone
We heard, when our Councilors answered the phone,
"This deal is done, plus we don't like your tone."
To find out what happened you don't talk with us.
We don't know the truth, we just bother and fuss.
Plus, no one who lives here can honestly say
Why the City would take the median away
So go a few miles South where the Manager works
Don't tell him we sent you, he thinks we're jerks
And search in the shadows where the Traffic Czar lurks
To find the truth of the lifted median.
Well, I use the word truth, but that's not what I mean
The real word is something far more obscene
That describes the City's constant smokescreen
On the case of the lifted median.
The City held lots of meetings but somehow didn't hear,
Though our feelings were made quite crystal clear,
That losing the median was our greatest fear.
They refused to do studies, they said they knew best
They heard what they wanted, they ignored the rest.
What the City will tell you is what they've said all along
"This redesign's good and our critics are wrong.
"There might be one or two small, little pains
"but we think that's nothing for installing bike lanes.
"And you've got to remember, we're the ones with the brains."
But if this plan is so good and the City so smart
Why will this project tear North Cambridge apart?
Why has it been so unloved from the start?
Those are the questions you might want to raise
To those people who sing the redesign's praise.
Why, you might ask, did the City refuse
To survey the locals to determine our views?
Could it be the City knew if we got to choose
That their redesign plan would certainly loose?
With half of the median ripped from the street
And the distance between crosswalks up to five hundred feet
It would seem that this plan wouldn't be hard to beat
This plan of the lifted median.
And just at the point when we thought all was lost
We found out that the City can't cover the cost
It seems a perfect time for this plan to be tossed.
But no, says the City, this plan's carved in stone
It does not matter how much you all snivel and moan.
But we live here, we play here, we're the ones with the grip
On the safety provided by our median strip
And we wish that the City would answer our questions
And seriously consider our thoughtful suggestions
Our Median Strip is a very safe space
The City should do the right thing and leave it in place.
At the North end of Cambridge
By Craig Kelley
At the North end of Cambridge, near the Arlington sign
A big chunk of concrete hides an old trolley line
And the neighborhood people like that arrangement just fine
On the street of the lifted median.
What is the median and why is it there
And why would the City take and lift it somewhere?
And why in the world would anyone care
About an old piece of concrete with a neglected air?
Perhaps we all care 'cause it's well understood
That the City's plan will result in no good.
We know that just crossing the street will be tough
And the driving will become terribly rough
With left turns and right turns and u-turns as well
Getting 'round town will be scary as hell.
We folks from North Cambridge lived through it all
We questioned the wisdom of City Hall
and waited in vain for the Council to call.
But we learned all too quickly we were in it alone
We heard, when our Councilors answered the phone,
"This deal is done, plus we don't like your tone."
To find out what happened you don't talk with us.
We don't know the truth, we just bother and fuss.
Plus, no one who lives here can honestly say
Why the City would take the median away
So go a few miles South where the Manager works
Don't tell him we sent you, he thinks we're jerks
And search in the shadows where the Traffic Czar lurks
To find the truth of the lifted median.
Well, I use the word truth, but that's not what I mean
The real word is something far more obscene
That describes the City's constant smokescreen
On the case of the lifted median.
The City held lots of meetings but somehow didn't hear,
Though our feelings were made quite crystal clear,
That losing the median was our greatest fear.
They refused to do studies, they said they knew best
They heard what they wanted, they ignored the rest.
What the City will tell you is what they've said all along
"This redesign's good and our critics are wrong.
"There might be one or two small, little pains
"but we think that's nothing for installing bike lanes.
"And you've got to remember, we're the ones with the brains."
But if this plan is so good and the City so smart
Why will this project tear North Cambridge apart?
Why has it been so unloved from the start?
Those are the questions you might want to raise
To those people who sing the redesign's praise.
Why, you might ask, did the City refuse
To survey the locals to determine our views?
Could it be the City knew if we got to choose
That their redesign plan would certainly loose?
With half of the median ripped from the street
And the distance between crosswalks up to five hundred feet
It would seem that this plan wouldn't be hard to beat
This plan of the lifted median.
And just at the point when we thought all was lost
We found out that the City can't cover the cost
It seems a perfect time for this plan to be tossed.
But no, says the City, this plan's carved in stone
It does not matter how much you all snivel and moan.
But we live here, we play here, we're the ones with the grip
On the safety provided by our median strip
And we wish that the City would answer our questions
And seriously consider our thoughtful suggestions
Our Median Strip is a very safe space
The City should do the right thing and leave it in place.
October 26, 2009
Politics Ruins Schools
Unsure that Craig Kelley's assessment of Cambridge as the standard for success "in a diverse urban environment" is merited. Having elitist universities makes it more difficult to focus public attention on public secondary schools. Children of Cambridge academics mostly attend private schools and have little interest in the public schools. New York City with a population 70 times greater attracts relatively much more attention on public schools than Cambridge does. Having a zombie-like electorate which supports political tampering with school time promoting non educational political issues over basic learning is why Cambridge fails to succeed with all of its funding. The focus is political not educational. Having a Mayor who teaches bad lessons to students is only one example of why this city fails. Not even the local newspaper recognizes the problem.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=529722
Nolan, McGovern for Cambridge
Published On Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:25 PM
Harvard Crimson
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Unsure that Craig Kelley's assessment of Cambridge as the standard for success "in a diverse urban environment" is merited. Having elitist universities makes it more difficult to focus public attention on public secondary schools. Children of Cambridge academics mostly attend private schools and have little interest in the public schools. New York City with a population 70 times greater attracts relatively much more attention on public schools than Cambridge does. Having a zombie-like electorate which supports political tampering with school time promoting non educational political issues over basic learning is why Cambridge fails to succeed with all of its funding. The focus is political not educational. Having a Mayor who teaches bad lessons to students is only one example of why this city fails. Not even the local newspaper recognizes the problem.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=529722
Nolan, McGovern for Cambridge
Published On Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:25 PM
Harvard Crimson
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
November 23, 2007
Neighborhood Crime Task Force Final Report November 19, 2007
Neighborhood Crime Task Force Final Report November 19, 2007
From the Executive Summary of the Crime Task Force Final Report Nov. 19,
2007. "The recommendations for action described in this report represent the
consensus opinion of the Task Force members that resulted from this intensive
and comprehensive process."
"Consensus: Collective opinion. General agreement or accord." (American
heritage Dictionary, 2nd Ed. 1982)
Task Force Membership: Co-chairs are Mayor Reeves, and City Manager Robert
Healy. Four City Councilors, Kelley, Simmons, Galluccio, and Reeves. Two School
Committee Members, Harding and Grassi.
Ellen Semenoff, a lawyer, is Assistant City Manager for Human Services, and
the supervisor of the Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator for Cambridge.
Cambridge Police Commissioner and two Deputy Superintendents. The Chief of
MIT police. 50 members total.
On page 25, Chapter 4: "Crime has a variety of causes, not least among
which are mental health . . .”
This is irrational. Studies prove that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs
cause violence. The Task Force members are clueless about that. Task Force Final
Report demonstrates irrational prejudice, which indicates unlawful denial of
rights to persons with disabilities.
Recommendations, page 30: “experts on mental health to be on call as
appropriate if the situation involves crime in which mental health might be a
factor.”
There is no causal connection between crime and disability. Task Force
again shows its irrational prejudices toward persons with disabilities. Task
Force is unable to distinguish between crime and disability.
They would never suggest that persons of color commit crimes because of
their race, that homosexuals commit crimes due to their sexual preferences, or
that women commit crime because of their gender. They openly state in a formal
city report that persons with disabilities commit crimes due to their
disability. That is an outrage.
The Task Force boasted the “distinguished group represented each segment of
the community called for in the policy order.” Once again persons with
disabilities were excluded from a city project. The City Manager and the Mayor
chose the members. How many times do these public officials need to be told that
they violate city, state and US laws regarding persons with disabilities? They
refuse to extend civic participation to persons with disabilities. They need to
be removed from office. This is a bigoted report.
A statement on each City Council agenda says "City of Cambridge does not
discriminate on the basis of disability." Huh?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
From the Executive Summary of the Crime Task Force Final Report Nov. 19,
2007. "The recommendations for action described in this report represent the
consensus opinion of the Task Force members that resulted from this intensive
and comprehensive process."
"Consensus: Collective opinion. General agreement or accord." (American
heritage Dictionary, 2nd Ed. 1982)
Task Force Membership: Co-chairs are Mayor Reeves, and City Manager Robert
Healy. Four City Councilors, Kelley, Simmons, Galluccio, and Reeves. Two School
Committee Members, Harding and Grassi.
Ellen Semenoff, a lawyer, is Assistant City Manager for Human Services, and
the supervisor of the Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator for Cambridge.
Cambridge Police Commissioner and two Deputy Superintendents. The Chief of
MIT police. 50 members total.
On page 25, Chapter 4: "Crime has a variety of causes, not least among
which are mental health . . .”
This is irrational. Studies prove that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs
cause violence. The Task Force members are clueless about that. Task Force Final
Report demonstrates irrational prejudice, which indicates unlawful denial of
rights to persons with disabilities.
Recommendations, page 30: “experts on mental health to be on call as
appropriate if the situation involves crime in which mental health might be a
factor.”
There is no causal connection between crime and disability. Task Force
again shows its irrational prejudices toward persons with disabilities. Task
Force is unable to distinguish between crime and disability.
They would never suggest that persons of color commit crimes because of
their race, that homosexuals commit crimes due to their sexual preferences, or
that women commit crime because of their gender. They openly state in a formal
city report that persons with disabilities commit crimes due to their
disability. That is an outrage.
The Task Force boasted the “distinguished group represented each segment of
the community called for in the policy order.” Once again persons with
disabilities were excluded from a city project. The City Manager and the Mayor
chose the members. How many times do these public officials need to be told that
they violate city, state and US laws regarding persons with disabilities? They
refuse to extend civic participation to persons with disabilities. They need to
be removed from office. This is a bigoted report.
A statement on each City Council agenda says "City of Cambridge does not
discriminate on the basis of disability." Huh?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
August 26, 2007
Unlawful Cambridge City Council Actions?
Unlawful Cambridge City Council Actions?
Citizen participation is essential even when the process is delegated to a
private not for profit agency. The reported actions of two City Councilors raise
other issues. (Janice O'Leary, "In this nook, too much affordability?" Boston
Globe, August 26, 2007)
All too often in Massachusetts the end justifies the means. Stopping the
development process to permit citizen input may result from unlawful actions by
two Cambridge City Councilors. Mass General Laws Ch. 43 Sec. 107 prohibits
direct contact between Councilors and city officials except for informational
purposes.
Asking the Planning Board to postpone their decision looks like a violation
of that law. The penalties are severe. But not many laws are being enforced in
Mass for malfeasance. Cambridge is a lawless city. Its academic leaders exploit
this flaw.
It is so pervasive now with one-party rule firmly in place that the
Governor openly encourages ignoring a statute that is inconvenient for his most
powerful supporters. This is a disgrace in a city which boasts of a prestigious
school of government and two international academic institutions.
What is being taught at these schools?
[This is an online copy of the statute. It may not be official, but it is
close.]
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 43. CITY CHARTERS
PLAN E.—GOVERNMENT BY A CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING A MAYOR ELECTED FROM ITS
NUMBER, AND A CITY MANAGER, WITH ALL ELECTIVE BODIES ELECTED AT LARGE BY
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Chapter 43: Section 107. Interference with city manager by council forbidden;
penalty
Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall
direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office
by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in
the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the
service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal
with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the
city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give
orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any
member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of,
any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and
upon final conviction thereof his office in the city
council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any
office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
In this nook, too much affordability?
Residents decry 16-unit proposal for Windsor Street
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
August 26, 2007
East Cambridge residents felt the squeeze at Tuesday night's Planning Board
meeting, but that was nothing new for this group. They feel their elbow room
encroached upon daily in their part of town.
East Cambridge, with its estimated 71 people per acre, is the densest part of a
city deemed the fifth-densest in the country by some data crunchers. Residents
fed up with new housing creating more traffic, more noise, less space, and more
trash for rats to feast on let the Planning Board know it last week.
They crowded a second-floor conference room in the City Hall Annex, lining up
against the walls and overflowing into the hallway. There were no open seats as
they protested a local developer's proposed conversion of a former church into
16 affordable-housing units.
"We're not against affordable housing," said John Raulinaitis, who has lived in
East Cambridge for 79 years. "We're against housing, period."
Just-a-Start Corp., a 36-year-old local nonprofit organization, purchased the
Immaculate Conception Lithuanian Church property earlier Tuesday for $1.425
million. Many residents did not know the sale had taken place and were angered
by the way the nonprofit dealt with neighbors about it.
"I don't appreciate how they've handled the process," said Donna Barry, a
neighbor who said she was undecided about the proposed housing itself.
Just-a-Start made an offer on the property May 23, but did not meet with
neighbors until Aug. 14, just one week before the sale.
Regarding the lack of public involvement, the project's manager, Beatriz Gómez,
said, "We wish we had done a better job."
Vice Mayor Timothy Toomey and City Councilor Craig Kelley agreed and asked that
the Planning Board suspend any decision about whether to issue the nonprofit the
necessary permit to move forward with the conversion until neighbors and
Just-a-Start could hash out an agreeable plan.
The members of the Planning Board agreed to postpone a decision until neighbors'
concerns had been addressed.
[...]
Citizen participation is essential even when the process is delegated to a
private not for profit agency. The reported actions of two City Councilors raise
other issues. (Janice O'Leary, "In this nook, too much affordability?" Boston
Globe, August 26, 2007)
All too often in Massachusetts the end justifies the means. Stopping the
development process to permit citizen input may result from unlawful actions by
two Cambridge City Councilors. Mass General Laws Ch. 43 Sec. 107 prohibits
direct contact between Councilors and city officials except for informational
purposes.
Asking the Planning Board to postpone their decision looks like a violation
of that law. The penalties are severe. But not many laws are being enforced in
Mass for malfeasance. Cambridge is a lawless city. Its academic leaders exploit
this flaw.
It is so pervasive now with one-party rule firmly in place that the
Governor openly encourages ignoring a statute that is inconvenient for his most
powerful supporters. This is a disgrace in a city which boasts of a prestigious
school of government and two international academic institutions.
What is being taught at these schools?
[This is an online copy of the statute. It may not be official, but it is
close.]
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 43. CITY CHARTERS
PLAN E.—GOVERNMENT BY A CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING A MAYOR ELECTED FROM ITS
NUMBER, AND A CITY MANAGER, WITH ALL ELECTIVE BODIES ELECTED AT LARGE BY
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Chapter 43: Section 107. Interference with city manager by council forbidden;
penalty
Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall
direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office
by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in
the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the
service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal
with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the
city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give
orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any
member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of,
any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and
upon final conviction thereof his office in the city
council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any
office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
In this nook, too much affordability?
Residents decry 16-unit proposal for Windsor Street
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
August 26, 2007
East Cambridge residents felt the squeeze at Tuesday night's Planning Board
meeting, but that was nothing new for this group. They feel their elbow room
encroached upon daily in their part of town.
East Cambridge, with its estimated 71 people per acre, is the densest part of a
city deemed the fifth-densest in the country by some data crunchers. Residents
fed up with new housing creating more traffic, more noise, less space, and more
trash for rats to feast on let the Planning Board know it last week.
They crowded a second-floor conference room in the City Hall Annex, lining up
against the walls and overflowing into the hallway. There were no open seats as
they protested a local developer's proposed conversion of a former church into
16 affordable-housing units.
"We're not against affordable housing," said John Raulinaitis, who has lived in
East Cambridge for 79 years. "We're against housing, period."
Just-a-Start Corp., a 36-year-old local nonprofit organization, purchased the
Immaculate Conception Lithuanian Church property earlier Tuesday for $1.425
million. Many residents did not know the sale had taken place and were angered
by the way the nonprofit dealt with neighbors about it.
"I don't appreciate how they've handled the process," said Donna Barry, a
neighbor who said she was undecided about the proposed housing itself.
Just-a-Start made an offer on the property May 23, but did not meet with
neighbors until Aug. 14, just one week before the sale.
Regarding the lack of public involvement, the project's manager, Beatriz Gómez,
said, "We wish we had done a better job."
Vice Mayor Timothy Toomey and City Councilor Craig Kelley agreed and asked that
the Planning Board suspend any decision about whether to issue the nonprofit the
necessary permit to move forward with the conversion until neighbors and
Just-a-Start could hash out an agreeable plan.
The members of the Planning Board agreed to postpone a decision until neighbors'
concerns had been addressed.
[...]
August 9, 2007
Egg-laying Hens Need Protection?
Egg-laying Hens Need Protection?
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I knew that other city councils
had passed resolutions condemning the cruelty inherent in the use of battery
cages,” Shapiro said. “And Cambridge being such a progressive city, I thought it
would be terrific for us to do something like that as well.”
Shapiro is the brother of Paul Shapiro, senior director of the Humane
Society’s factory farming campaign. [...]
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I knew that other city councils
had passed resolutions condemning the cruelty inherent in the use of battery
cages,” Shapiro said. “And Cambridge being such a progressive city, I thought it
would be terrific for us to do something like that as well.”
Shapiro is the brother of Paul Shapiro, senior director of the Humane
Society’s factory farming campaign. [...]
August 3, 2007
Nobody Here But Us Chickens
Nobody Here But Us Chickens
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [...]
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [...]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
