Mark Langlois wrote a piece on the Dunkin Dounuts drama in today's News-Times and it's worth reading if you want a brief explanation on the situation. Since I've been heavily involved in this story, I'm going to take this story to the next level (remember when I said I traveled through all the wards in Danbury and talk to people about their anger about development...)
AGAIN, the issue during this election will be D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T and the mayor and the elected officials who allowed this idiotic over development to take place in our city will be held accountable for their actions.
It's not about a 311 system.
It's not about a sexual offender ordinance.
It's not about a so-called "parade ordinance" (which has nothing to do with parades and more to do with not allowing more than 20 people to demonstrate (i.e., police union) without the city's approval).
It's not about the so-called crackdown on illegals (which was yielded nothing in the last two years of the mayor "addressing" the issue NOR has decreased the flow of illegals making Danbury their home NOR has yielded ONE arrest of a contractor rips off the city in taxes by hiring an undocumented day laborer on the cheap).
It's ABOUT D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T and over the course of the year, I'm going to do something that no one has done, let the citizens of Danbury explain this to everyone in their own words and I'm going to start with this IDIOTIC Dunkin Dounuts proposal.
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.
