On Nov. 9, the Danbury Common Council approved the recommendation of an ad hoc committee to allow the mayor to enter into a contract with a group of investors who want to build a sports and entertainment complex on the city's westside.
Remember the baseball stadium we didn't build? That's the land.
You may remember that we rushed to judgment on the "Planned Neighborhood Development" to avoid a casino on the former Union Carbide site.
There was a big rush on this deal, too. It appeared on the Common Council agenda Oct. 3, was referred to an ad hoc committee Oct. 19 and was approved by the council with little debate Nov. 9.
It's ironic that public broadcasting of Common Council meetings gets delayed for months while the Republican majority council just rubber stamps anything the mayor wants.
Here are the questions that need to be answered:
Is a sports entertainment facility the best use for these 13 acres of city land? Is this land a possible site for a third middle school? Is it suitable for single-level affordable elderly housing?
Does this proposal detract from our effort to revitalize City Center? Does it threaten the profitability of the ice arena? Does it directly compete with the O'Neill Center on Western Connecticut State University's westside campus?
Does the claim that we are getting a "community facility" at no cost to taxpayers jibe with the proposed 99-year lease for 99 bucks?
Should the mayor enter into an agreement to the exclusion of any other investor or interested party that may have a better idea than arena football, hockey, lacrosse and "Disney on Ice"?
Please call the mayor and council president Joe Cavo to let them know what you think about this idea.
I don't think it's in the best interests of our community.
People, if I said it once, I'll say it again, YOU SHOULD BE CONCENRED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AT CITY HALL.
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.
