College students weren't exactly what city officials had in mind a few years ago when they gave a developer a tax incentive to build market-rate housing downtown.
At the time, city officials were trying to attract developers to build downtown housing that would lure young professionals and empty-nesters with expendable income, who would in turn spend downtown and spur other developers to build restaurants and shops.
But with BRT Realty considering renting its 115-unit apartment building on Crosby Street to college students, some city officials now are questioning whether the city can, or should, void the tax incentive.
Common Council Democrats sent a letter dated Jan. 10 to Council President Joe Cavo, requesting that the city rescind the tax incentive.
"These tax deferrals were granted with the understanding that the developers would use them to build middle-income market-rate housing for families," the letter states. "While we have no objection to additional housing for a growing and successful Western Connecticut State University, we do not believe that a private real estate developer should be able to keep these tax breaks while not keeping its promise to the city."
In simple terms, this project stinks and BRT couldn't find people to rent the apartments so they went with a plan B that doesn't make any sense.
...whoa, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'll really dig into this issue later. I don't want to show all my cards yet.
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.
