We just completed a public opinion survey on land development and public services to access how the public feels about changes in Danbury. Some of the findings are pertinent tonight and shouldn't be ignored.
First, we asked the public's preferences for encouraging (or discouraging) future development. Only 27.8% said we should encourage an increase in development while 53.6% said we should discourage it.
Now, the kinds of development we should encourage or discourage, only 23.9% said we should encourage heavy manufacturing while 53.6% said we should discourage it.
Light manufacturing was viewed more favorable 64.4 percent encourage and only 21 percent think we should discourage it.
The traffic congestion and safety came up again and again as a serious concern.
For example, Federal Road, Mill Plain Road, Padanaram Road, Newtown Road, White Street all were considered to have serious and very serious congestion problems.
Issues like Elmer's Diner and Dunkin' Donuts only exacerbates the problem and give the impression that things are out of control.
Taken together, these attitudes seems to represent changes in public opinion that are relative new to Danbury. Unless we respond to it, the result can be far worse than many would want to see if the city adopted a no growth policy.
—Planning Department Director Dennis Elpern's comments to Zoning Commission August 28 2007.
As we endure the political "silly" season, the results of the city's own public opinion survey echoes the exact thing I've stated on this site for the last two years. The main concern on the minds of the majority of residents in Danbury is irresponsible/over-development. Whether it's traffic congestion, deterioration of the city's roads and bridges, or an over-extension of city services, a clear majority of issues plaguing the city can be traced back to one thing: D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T.
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.
We just completed a public opinion survey on land development and public services to access how the public feels about changes in Danbury. Some of the findings are pertinent tonight and shouldn't be ignored.
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.
