Could you PLEASE explain this line in your article on the parade ordinance?

The ordinance was proposed to help the city govern the kind of parades that arose spontaneously when Brazil won 2006 World Cup matches.

If one would just take a simple look at the first paragraph in the ordinance, you would CLEARLY see that the ordinance will IN NO WAY govern "the kind of parades that arose spontaneously" during the World Cup games yet, you did not state this in your article, thus the News-Times gives the impression ONCE AGAIN that this ordinance can be used against the events during the World Cup games of last year.

Furthermore...could you PLEASE explain this portion of your statement:

when Brazil won 2006 World Cup matches.

This is a clear attempt to paint the Brazilian population (a.k.a. those pesky illegal immigrants) with this ordinance, which is outrageous at least. If my memory serves me right, there were also many celebrations in the streets from those who rooted for Portugal, and Italy as for Brazil.

In any event, THIS SO-CALLED ORDINANCE CAN NOT BE USED AS A TOOL OF ENFORCEMENT AGAINST SPONTANEOUS CELEBRATIONS! You can not stop anyone from spontaneous celebrating...period.

Please read the ordinance...it spells it out quite clearly in the first paragraph:

Parade means any march, demonstration, procession or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination therof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property

Spontaneous celebrations does not fall under "prior planning" and the members of the council are well aware of this because Assistant corporation council Ric Gottschalk, the council's parliamentarian
has stated this to them several times including during the ad-hoc committee meetings.

Tom Saadi outlined all of this (including Gottschalk's statement to the ad-hoc committee and Common council) when he presented his amendment, (the video of which has been widely viewed on this site). In the coming days, I will present video footage from other meetings where the parade ordinance was discussed to back up Saadi's claim that EVERYONE on the council was properly informed that this ordinance WILL NOT ADDRESS SPONTANEOUS PARADES.

The News-Times has a responsibility to properly inform the public, especially on matters as critical as this where the will of the council was ignored by mayor who feels that he knows what best for Danbury over the opinion of the Legislative Branch of government in Danbury.

This is a serious matter, which requires serious attention...not misleading statements about the effectiveness of this ordinance against immigrants.

It's bad enough that the News-Times had better things to do than even ATTEND THE COMMON COUNCIL meeting when this well-known hot-button issue came up to a vote, at the very least, the News-Times have a responsibility to get the story right.