The Danbury Planning Commission, a group of volunteers appointed by the mayor, met three times to review the petition for a special exception to build a Dunkin' Donuts on Springside Avenue.
When it was all over, the commission determined that ". . . the facility . . . is not compatible with the existing neighborhood" and ". . . the proposed roadway improvements will not accommodate the increase of traffic without significant decline in traffic safety."
Their decision was based on the character of the neighborhood, their own knowledge of both the neighborhood and the problems "at the operation of similar facilities," and the testimony of residents and former residents of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission made the right decision when it denied this Dunkin' Donuts for safety and quality-of-life reasons.
I, my neighbors and several concerned Danbury residents attended those meetings. If changing the number of car trips per day from 500 to 498 was all it took to negate all that, why did we all waste our time?
The facts today are the same as they were at the start of the original proposal.
If this is allowed to stand, what's the point? Is the commission really there to keep Danbury's best interest in mind and make sure developers are not destroying our city? Or are they just a group of people holding meetings so we believe the process is working?
The Resolution of Denial is available from City Hall. The hearing minutes are available online. I encourage everyone to read them.
We need to take a stand on issues or our city will be changed forever -- and not for the better.
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.
Are we all just wasting our time?
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.
