The legislature and governor ignored too many areas of Connecticut in a transportation plan approved earlier this year, according to a report by a group that represents cities and towns.
The report said the state's plan, which devotes $1.3 billion over 10 years to improving Interstate 95 and rail transportation, focuses too much on coastal Fairfield County and ignores greater Danbury and other areas.
"Interstate 84 between Waterbury and the New York border is all too often a multi-lane truck and car parking lot," said the report, completed by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Central Connecticut State University finance department.
The report goes on to say that $1.3 billion is not nearly enough to solve Connecticut's gridlock problems, and that the state should spend $4.7 billion more.
[...]
It's obvious that the money approved by the legislature was insufficient to deal with statewide transportation needs, said Newtown First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
He served on a task force concerning highway improvements from the New York state line to the Housatonic River region.
"That was roughly 10 miles of road, and it had projected costs of $280 million. So $1.3 billion (for the whole state) clearly isn't enough," Rosenthal said. "If traffic stands still on I-84, or 95, it strangles off economic growth. If there is a wreck on 84, Main Street in Newtown gets backed up."
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.
