A new attempt to build the Super 7 highway between Danbury and Norwalk has apparently met the same old end — it went nowhere.
State Rep. Antonietta Boucher, R-Wilton said Wednesday the General Assembly’s Transportation Committee has refused to consider a proposal to put the Super 7 plan back on the state Department of Transportation’s list of highway projects/ The committee’s deadline for acting on any bills was Monday.
Boucher said that should end talk of reviving a Rt 7 highway this year. While Norwalk officials still support the idea, other towns along its route — Danbury, Redding, Ridgefield and Wilton — oppose it, in thunder.
Boucher said there is a chance that the proposal’s backer, State Sen. Robert Duff, D-Norwalk, could try to attach it as an amendment to another transportation bill. But she said that never get through both houses of the General Assembly.
Lawmakers yesterday ap proved a num ber of bills to im prove the state's bus and rail ser vice, but a controversial proposal to revive the Super 7 highway was not voted out of committee.
Supporters of the long-stalled highway between Norwalk and Danbury vowed to keep fighting for it after learning that the legislature's Transportation Committee did not approve it before yesterday's deadline.
Lawmakers who opposed the Super 7 bill said the committee's actions prove the state's focus has shifted to mass transit and away from super-highways.
"It's going to take some time before we have shovels in the ground, but I'm going to keep fighting for this until the session ends," said Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, who proposed the Super 7 bill. "This issue is far bigger than just a bill. The outcry we got, both for and against the Super 7, shows what an important topic this is for people."
More than two months remain in the legislative session, and the Super 7 bill could be attached to other "vehicles," Duff said.
But there is too much opposition and not enough money to build Super 7, critics said.
The project has been stalled for more than 50 years by environmentalists and residents of Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield. The state owns about 60 percent of the land needed for the project, which would cost more than $1 billion to finish.
The state should be focused on improving rail service and the existing Route 7, said Rep. Antonietta "Toni" Boucher, R-Wilton.
"Let us now all work together to make much needed improvements to our area's infrastructure," Boucher said. "Imagine how much can be accomplished if we presented a united front in promoting these worthy projects," such as widening the existing Route 7, completing the Merritt Parkway-Route 7 interchange and improving Metro-North Railroad's Danbury line.
Three things: 1.) driving on Route 7 is horrible 2.) taking the Metro from Danbury to Norwalk is even worse than driving and 3.) the people in the Danbury area have suffered from years of empty promises from elected officials who promised time and time again to work on a solution to the problem.
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.
