Would someone please tell me how permission was ever granted to build a diner on the site at Padanaram Road?
The front sits slightly off one of the most busily traveled and congested roads in Danbury, while the back is practically in the brook. I see very little room for parking or for safe access and exit from the site.
Maybe I am missing something. But I have been wondering, since I saw their sign advertising that a diner was coming, how that particular site ever got through the zoning process?
I would really appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to enlighten me.
You're not missing anything. The diner is a complete idiotic idea and an insult to the many people who have to drive back in forth and deal with the ridiculous traffic on North Street everyday.
With more developments being proposed on North Street/Padanaram Road, the traffic problem is only going to get worse and the addition of a diner at the busiest section of that street isn't going to help things.
To give you a better idea about the problem on North Street, here is a video clip I took from a year ago which highlights the problem. Now mind you, this is on a non-busy day and I'm on a corner where traffic has a chance to break up a bit. The diner in question is going to be placed about a quarter mile down the street going to your right (notice the cars at a standstill under the traffic light in the clip).
Once again, this is EXACTLY the reason why 1.) ALL local government meetings should be broadcast on public access and 2). people should be more informed about what's happening at City Hall. These types of developments are brought up at Planning and Zoning and/or EIC and that's where the public should make their stand, not after the fact when the foundation has been poured and the walls have gone up.
Too many times we see people write letters to the editor in which they express surprise that a development is going up in their area. Broadcasting meetings and community involvement will go a long way in terms of making sure that people are kept informed and not surprised with new buildings popping up all over the place.
The number ONE complaint I hear from people via/email and/or in person about Danbury is NOT illegal immigration but overdevelopment and traffic woes. The volume of traffic in Danbury is out-of-control yet every time we turn around, people hear of YET another condo development popping up OR additional units being added to already irritating developments (i.e. the new units popping up at Stetson Place on Padanaram Road).
The people who are complaining the most are the people who live right off of North Street/Padanaram Road and have to travel that road everyday. Over the past couple of years, the traffic problem has spilled over to other streets such as White Street/Newtown Road and Main Street yet there has been to this date, no plan to properly address the concern and adding new cameras above signal lights don't really help the situation when the ENTIRE STREET is jammed for miles.
Due to popular demand, over the next few months, I'll be interviewing several people in that area who are fighting back against developers who are destroying their neighborhood and following their fight from community meetings, to confronting developers (and their lawyers) at City Hall meetings.
UPDATE: I received several emails from people who live around the North Street area asking for more info on the latest development being proposed at City Hall. Since I'm in the middle of archiving my videos to DVD (which takes a long time to accomplish), I simply don't have the time to report on this story as of yet. Also, sine this is a holiday week, I'm devoting more time to going back and reposting some of the more popular posts from 2006 while I take a break from the action.
I already shot the video for the new development proposal story but I simply don't have the computer space to produce the videofile at this point. Once the post is completed and uploaded, all the contact information will be presented.
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.
