In an exclusive interview with HatCityBLOG, Democratic Common Councilman Paul Rotello took time out of his schedule to help explain the various problems with the ordinance and why everyone should be concerned.
Part 1: The public is misinformed ("This is not the ordinance you want, this is not the ordinance you expect.")
Part 2: If this ordinance doesn't address "spontaneous celebrations" then why do we really need this ordinance? Is this matter more about a knee-jerk reaction to immigration? (note: the World Cup games were in 2006).
Part 3: Threat to the right to assemble and technical problems with the ordinance.
Sections of the ordinance mentioned by Councilman Rotello in interview (note the section in BOLD)
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 thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the 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.
[...]
Sec 11-15 (d):
Public assembly means any meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally or gathering, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, held on the streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property owned by or under the 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.
[...]
Sec 11-22 Standards for issuance
(a): The Chief of Police shall issue a permit as provided for herin when, from a consideration of the application and from such other informaiton as may otherwise be obtained, he finds that:
(1) The conduct of the parade or public assembly will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of the other pedestrian or vehicular traffic contiguous to its route or location;
(2) The conduct of the parade or public assembly will not require the diversion of so great a number of City police officers to properly police the line of movement and the areas contiguous thereto as to prevent normal police protection of the City;
(3) The concentration of persons, animals, and vehicles at public assembly points of the parade or public assembly will not unduly interfere with proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance service to, areas contiguous to such public assembly areas;
(4) The conduct of the parade or public assembly is not reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property;
(5) The parade or public assembly is scheduled to move from its point of origin to its point of termination expeditiously and without unreasonable delays en route;
(6) Adequate sanitation and other required health facilities are or will be made available in or adjacent to any public assembly areas;
(7) There are sufficient parking places near the site of the parade or public assembly to accommodate the number of vehicles reasonably expected;
(8) No parade or public assembly permit application for the same time and location has already been granted or has been received and will be granted;
(9) No parade or public assembly permit application for the same time but a different location has already been granted or has been received and will be granted, and the police resources required for that prior parade or public assembly are so great that in combination with the subsequent proposed application, the resulting deployment of police services would have an immediate and adverse effect upon the welfare and safety of persons and property; and
(10) No event is scheduled elsewhere in the City where the police resources required for that event are so great that the deployment of police services for the proposed parade or public assembly would have an immediate and adverse effect upon the welfare and safety of persons and property.
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.
In an exclusive interview with HatCityBLOG, Democratic Common Councilman Paul Rotello took time out of his schedule to help explain the various problems with the ordinance and why everyone should be concerned. 
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.
