1. The world cup games Mrs. Mitchell talked about was in 1994 which means this was a "problem" in 1998 as well as 2002. Why wasn't this issue addressed back then?
2. This permit requirement ordinance proposal came into existence two month before the start of the 2006 World Cup games. Since the proposal was sent to an ad-hoc committee, it would take some time before the proposal came to a vote because the council meets monthly. The World Cup games started in June while the proposal was in an ad-hoc committee. Coincidence?
3. Mayor Boughton issues a statement blasting the World Cup parades and mentions the permit requirement ordinance in Wednesday's News-Times article. Coincidence?
The whole proposal was a setup from the beginning and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. The moment I heard about this proposal, I said "great timing" and knew that this proposal centered around the parades which occur during the World Cup games. The parades were sure to create an outrage as the celebrations clog up Main Street and can bring traffic to a standstill. When the people start complaining, the people at City Hall can say "hey, we have this proposal in committee that will solve all the problems. Show your support, write letters to the editor, speak out on the subject at the next Common Council meeting and show your support, call into local radio and public access shows, yada, yada, yada."
Next thing you know, the powers that be can say, hey, this is what the people want and bang, the bill passes. Democrats would be put into a corner because they would be seen as weak on this issue and out of touch with the emotional response of the public. The Republicans would use this to their full advantage because they can turn around and say that the Democrats are giving us a hard time with this proposal. Checkmate.
Now, if this ordinance was presented earlier (lets say last fall), people wouldn't give it a second thought. We live in a fast-food society and people forget things as soon as the 30 second sound bite is completed. Since the timing of the proposal was setup perfectly, people on the Common Council who are in support of the measure will have the anger of the "short attention span" public behind them (ah, I can see Pauline Basso holding up a News-Times article right now).
Remember, this is your local government at work and this is politics 101 at it's best.
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.
