The developer of the 115-unit apartment building on Crosby Street is considering renting all the rooms to college students.
[...]
BRT is constructing the 115-unit apartment building, plus another development on Kennedy Avenue called Kennedy Place for approximately 560 apartments. The city gave the developer tax breaks for the economic development benefits likely to come to the city for creating market-rate housing downtown.
Many residents find it hard to believe that the developers had in mind renting these units to college students when they and the city envisioned these massive developments as a way to re-vitalize the downtown area. In the end, was this worth the loss in tax revenue? Will the benefits outweigh the increase in congestion on the roads and draining of city services, which is already suffering from the influx of illegal immigrants (according to those who support cracking down on illegals in the area).
Over the next few weeks, I'll bring you reports from residents who have had enough with condo and apartment developments in their area and are fighting back...and fighting back hard. One such resident told me about an idea that is being proposed in Waterbury, another city where residents are fed up with the rise in condo developments.
Although the mayor did but a temporary stoppage to developments a few years ago, the new buildings on the horizon will make the units in the past look like a joke (i.e., the massive 500+ closed gated condo development currently on the books for Kennedy Park). With traffic at an all-time high and sewer rates and taxes rising, you can be certain that you'll hear and see a condo development backlash as we approach 2007. If the EIC meeting I attended was any indication, things are going to heat up next year when more information on these development proposals comes to light.
Think I'm kidding? Well, I just happened to videotape the meeting and when I post the footage (and the interviews I conducted with residents after the meeting), you'll see what I mean.
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.
