Using immigration for political purposes is at center stage again as the Common Council is preparing to pass what might possibly be the worst piece of legislation in the history of Danbruy, the parade ordinance.

Today, HatCityBLOG will provide all-day coverage on this ordinance from it's origins, to the many revisions in the ad-hoc committee. I'll have several interviews with critics of the ordinance and well as flashback video moments from supporters of the ordinance as a knee-jerk response to the activity among the immigrant community (hmm, why does the volleyball ordinance come to mind) and why this will HAVE NO IMPACT ON SPONTANEOUS CELEBRATIONS such as the World Cup victory celebrations. Ultimately, I'll present why this ordinance and others like it are unnecessary, bad for the city, and will ultimately cost paypayers money in court costs.

NOTE: This will be an ongoing post and will be updated throughout the day and during the Common Council meeting tonight. Come back often for updates (NOTE: This thread starts at the bottom the this post and goes upward).

11:00 P.M. I thought I would be able to liveblog from City Hall but that was not the case. Luckily I videotape the entire public ordinance debate and thankfully I'll able to provide video footage of everything that happened. Personally, I'm at a loss for words and can only say that tonight was on of the worse examples of democracy I've seen in my five years of attending events at City Hall and only reinforces the belief that ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS SHOULD BE BROADCAST FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

In short, tonight was a sad day for Danbury. I still can't believe what I saw with my own eyes...

7:00: As I prepare to go to City Hall, here's video footage of Democrat Common Council minority leader Tom Saadi addressing the NUMEROUS PROBLEMS with the parade ordinance.


6:45: Since I'm running a bit behind schedule with the live blogging, I'll have to skip some points I was going to raise about the ordinance until later tonight. One thing many people who are blinded with immigrant rage simply don't understand is that this ordinance will not address the original issue: spontaneous celebrations by immigrants.

Evidence of Mayor Boughton's slight-of-hand linking immigrants rare bouts of spontaneous celebrations (REMEMBER, the World Cup games are EVERY 4 years) to this ordinance, look at the comments in today's News-Times article:

Posted by: Nemesys Tue, May 01 2007
I have no love for traffic-disrupting soccer celebration parades, but I also remember the impromtu march down Main Street by hundred of citizens a few days after 9-11. The freedom of assembly is too important to let the actions of a few horn-blowing nuts to take away from all of us. As handy as a parade ordinance would be, it limits more freedoms than it creates, so I'm against it.

[...]

osted by: ds11 Tue, May 01 2007
It's sad that some people in town don't care about the consequences of their actions. Impromtu parades do cause traffic jams and affect the noise level in our neighborhoods.

This ordinance was needed to protect the public. However, even the city volley ball courts have not stopped the weekend games at the end of our street. Sometimes there are 50 people illegally parked on the road. Let's see if officials can restore quiet to our neighborhoods.

[...]

Posted by: nomoreboredwithbs Tue, May 01 2007
Way to go Mayor...This is a good ordinance and reflects what other communities already have in place.

You can whine all you want, but the fact that illegal immigrants get to march down Main Street for free, while groups like the AOH and St. Peters Church get chased for thousands of dollars in bills for police presence is unfair and silly. This ordinance corrects that issue.

See what I mean. When I think of the run-up to this ordinance, I think of the Bush administration repeating the claim that Iraq had something to due with 9/11 during the run-up to the war so many times that the lie became a fact for some.

Thank goodness that, unlike during the 2005 election, not everyone is drinking the mayor's kool-aid and are taking a harder look at local government.

Posted by: preserveourfreedoms Tue, May 01 2007
Maybe, just maybe, our leaders will come to their senses and vote not to limit our freedoms. As noted, spontaneous parades can't be legislated and since this proposed legislation is clearly in response to the Brazilian "parades", why not wait until the next World Cup, look at the schedule, and then have the Police/Mayors Office plan accordingly for the number of celebrants who will be leaving the local establishments.

This shouldn't be too hard to plan for, and would certainly "preserve" another of our freedoms.

Maybe there is hope for Danbury...maybe this comment is from a HatCityBLOG reader.

5:30: Sorry for the delay but things have been hectic today to say the least.

The origins of this ordinance came from a knee-jerk reaction by politicians to the spontaneous celebrations of immigrants celebrating during the World Cup games of 2006. The creation of the ordinance is almost a carbon copy of the response to the volleyball games of 2005, which resulted in the infamous "volleyball ordinance" The ordinance was later scrapped DUE TO COMMUNITY LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACTUALLY SITTING DOWN AND COOPERATING but not after the issue received national attention in Time Magazine and the New York Times placing Danbury in a dark light while giving Mayor Boughton national attention.

In 2005, it was volleyball, in 2006 spontaneous expressions of celebrations during the World Cup games was the latest target by local officials (at least that's that was the CLEAR impression given to a low-informed public).

Now I'm running a bit behind schedule so I'll have address the origins of this ordinance later with more articles and videos. For now, take a look and listen to the what people had to say about the ordinance when it was introduced.

From the May 2006 Common Council, here's Margret Mitchell commenting on the ordinance. I'll provide more comments from last year later but the comments from Ms. Mitchell echoed just about EVERYONE (including many on the Common Council who voted in favor of the creation of the ad-hoc committee) that thought the ordinance would take care of the spontaneous celebrations by immigrants on the streets.
There is only one problem. Although the Boughton administration certainly gave the impression that the ordinance would address the immigrant's spontaneous celebrations, IN NO WAY WILL THIS ORDINANCE HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CELEBRATIONS.