If you had the pleasure to attend the BRT tax giveaway ad-hoc committee fiasco, you'd understand why Democratic Mayoral nominee Helena Abantes' is so upset.
Between the Mayor's disregard of the will of the Council at May's Common Council meeting, and the squelching of dissent at the BRT ad-hoc committee meeting (complete with hand gestures, Common Council President Joe Cavo passing notes to the committee, and a chairman who allowed the supporters of the development present their information THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE versus silencing the opposition who attempted to raise VALID POINTS), Abrantes is taking the gloves off and directing her anger directly at the person at the center of the problem: Mayor Boughton.
Abrantes had this to say about the mayor's political moves in regard to the parade ordinance.
In attempting to personally defeat amendments to the parade ordinance, Mayor Boughton has once again not abided by the City Charter and has not followed the democratic process on which this country was founded. The initial proposal for this ordinance was for the purpose of stopping sporadic parades which interfere with the normal function of our city. The city streets cannot be blocked in a manner which could hamper the safety of the residents of Danbury. The Mayor and Corporation Counsel knew or should have known that the Charter only allows the Mayor to vote in the event of a tie vote. The Mayor’s actions were not only wrong, they were a blatant attempt to subvert the bipartisan majority of the Common Council.
In no way will this ordinance aide the city in the safety issue of our residents and tax payers with regards to sporadic parades. This is a form of headlining for press once again without accomplishing anything. The city already has a parade ordinance that in fact will provide the Police Department with the ability to follow through with the laws of our City.
The new ordinance specifically states in Sec. 11-15 (Definitions) (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.
This ordinance also states that a requirement of 3 days is necessary to obtain a permit. This ordinance can interfere with the homecoming for Danbury High School . The Homecoming parade, which would require a permit if this ordinance is enacted and cause the tax payers once again to foot the bill for a fee which is required at this point of $100.00. This does not impact anyone except for the wallets of the taxpayer. This would no way stop a sporadic parade. This would interfere with a strike, a possible rally. That is not what the residents asked for.
I believe that we need to start truly caring about this city and do what is necessary for the safety of our community and educate people. Education is the most important form of communication. If someone is living here, they need to learn the laws already in existence and abide by the laws of this City. If the individuals do not want to abide by the laws of our city then in fact there are consequences which arise and the matter needs to be addressed in our court system. I don’t believe in political grandstanding, I believe in the safety and the well being of our community and I do believe we used to have that safety when we had a government that was truly caring and visionary.
Abrantes didn't stop there and we'll bring you more of what she had to say later.
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.
If you had the pleasure to attend the BRT tax giveaway ad-hoc committee fiasco, you'd understand why Democratic Mayoral nominee Helena Abantes' is so upset.
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.
