The city didn't need to give BRT General Corp. a tax break to build 114 apartments and 500 condominiums downtown.
At least that's what Dean Esposito, Democratic candidate for mayor, argued Wednesday in another salvo from his campaign against the pro-corporate policies of Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton.
"We're saturated with condominiums and multi-family housing in the city. Our traffic is a mess. Our high school is one of the largest in the state, and we're expanding our middle schools," Esposito said. "It all comes from over-development."
Esposito said developers don't need tax breaks to build housing in Danbury. They never did.
"It is absolutely clear that the mayor has ignored the interests of middle-class Danbury so that a few connected contractors can reap a windfall," Esposito said. "How are these condominiums and apartments going to impact our schools? How are they going to effect traffic?"
"What is the impact of this tax break on the taxpayer of Danbury?" Esposito asked. "I can see giving incentives to corporations like Boehringer Ingelheim or Cendant, to bring jobs to town. That's economic development. Housing never needed a hand getting built in Danbury."
The tax break on what the city calls "market-rate" condominiums and apartments was intended to encourage developers to take a chance on a downtown site.
The former director of Economic Development, James Bellano said the BRT tax break is a measured attempt to encourage pedestrian traffic downtown.
"They buy a condo, they walk on the street and shop in the shops," Bellano said. He explained state law would let the city offer this break city-wide. He said Danbury didn't do that. It's goal is to encourage the rebirth of downtown.
The problem with this logic of creating condos to encourage downtown development is that it didn't happen. The condos that popped up over the years are not in a area where people would walk downtown. One look at the location of recent condos would tell you that their location has only added to the increase of traffic onthe main roads and highway. If there is anything that has contributed to the development of the once abondoned downtown area (Main Street, White Street) its the increase of immigrants over the recent years as most immigrants walk and don't have automobiles.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
