The fact a proposed volleyball law is taking months to serve up has a mayoral challenger crying foul.
Democrat Dean Esposito said Mayor Mark Boughton and the Republican-controlled Common Council are keeping a "neighborhood nuisance" law stuck in a subcommittee because it is too controversial.
In the spring, elected officials said the law would be ready by summer. In the summer, they said it would be ready by the fall.
Now the law is expected to be sent to the Common Council in December. Public hearings would then be scheduled.
"What's taking so long? If you're going to do it, do it already," Esposito said.
Boughton said the political season has forced the law to the back burner. The mayor said city officials are not side-stepping the volleyball issue. "I don't think we're ducking it. We are just doing our due diligence," Boughton said.
City officials said a "neighborhood nuisance" law would regulate — among other activities — large, backyard volleyball games that have become increasingly popular among the city's immigrant population.
The large games caused friction this summer among neighbors in some parts of the city, such as on Corn Tassle Road and Casper Street.
City officials shut down one game on Casper Street when it was discovered a portion of the volleball court was on city property.
Members of the Common Council committee studying the issue said the law doesn't concentrate specifically on volleyball. Instead, it focuses on any "outdoor repetitive activities."
[...]
When the city first proposed the law, leaders in the Ecuadoran community worried it would unfairly target them. Volleyball is a popular sport in Ecuador and many of the neighborhood games in the city are organized by Ecuadoran property owners.
Esposito doesn't support the law. He said the city already has laws and zoning rules that deal with issues such as overcrowded volleyball games in back yards.
"Like I've said, this law was just a feel good thing to make people happy," Esposito said. "Now they don't know quite what to do with it."
However, Boughton said the law would give police the ability to issue tickets when they come across large neighborhood games. As it stands now, city officials can't stop the games immediately. Instead, zoning officers issue cease and desist orders.
Boughton said even when city officials visited games over the summer, the games continued. "We didn't shut down any volleyball games. That's the problem," Boughton said.
If the volleyball problem was such a big issue during the summer, why hasn't the nuisance law been passed. Does Esposito has a point?
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.
