Before I get into my latest installment of CAMPAIGN SPOTLIGHT with Common Council 3rd Ward candidates Jim Kelly and Lynn Taborsak, a little background is in order.

One of the less known fights between residents and developers in 2007 had to deal with Dunkin' Donuts madman Eduardo Batista's dream to have a coffee shop in every ward in Danbury. With the 3rd Ward his last ward not touched by his hands, Batista attempted to place a Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Springside Ave. and Osborne Street.

For those who are not familiar with the area, this quiet neighborhood that includes Springside Ave consist mainly of starter family homes and a majority of children in that neighborhood walk down Springside, across Osborne and up Hospital Ave to Broadview Middle School (see map below):

View Larger Map

Due to the great deal of traffic this Dunkin' Donuts would generate in this area, the neighbors in the area were concerned about the children's safety, especially during the wintertime since Springside Ave, with it's steep slope) is notorious for it's hazardous conditions during snowstorms. Also, there is a firehouse two houses down from the proposed location and residents were especially concerned about the impact the traffic from the Dunkin' Donuts would have on emergency equipment that needed to get to a scene.

For those who are not familiar with the area in question, here's a photograph, as well as video footage, of the two streets and the proposed site for the coffee shop (marked in red).

As you look at the images, take these facts into consideration:

• The odd location of the site (off Osborne and onto Springside).

• The slope of Springside Ave.

• The firehouse that's one house away from this location.

• The fact that kids go up and down this portion of Osborne on their way to Broadview School

• The fact that this Dunkin Donuts would have been hop and a skip away from the hospital; therefore, it's logical to assume that a majority of the traffic would be generated from those who either worked at the hospital, or those who visited loved ones at the hospital.

In a nutshell, this is a CLASSIC example of irresponsible development at it's worse and those in the neighborhood (including myself) were extremely upset that this project was even being proposed in the first place.

...but this time, the residents fought back in force.

Petitions were passed around and over a hundred signatures were collected in opposition to the proposal. Several articles were written about the situation in the News-Times and I tirelessly worked to inform residents to speak out against Batista's idea.

The proposal was in front of the planning commission on several occasions (read the minutes here, here, and here. Seeing that my Common Council representatives for the 3rd Ward (Joe Cavo and Mike Calandrino) were no where to be found, I and several other resident went to those who represented the 3rd ward on the Democratic Town Committee and they also got behind the neighbors against the development.

The News-Times did an editorial on the matter siding with the residents, while criticizing Batista and the level of irresponsible development that's been done under Mayor Boughton's watch.

Eduardo Batista has found that local residents like Dunkin' Donuts coffee and other products and has expanded his franchise throughout the region.

His latest proposal is to build a Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue in Danbury. It's one of the city's older neighborhoods, and the neighbors are upset.

Batista previously proposed a larger Dunkin' Donuts store for the site, which was rejected last fall by the Danbury Planning Commission.

Batista is taking the city to court over that rejection, a common tactic when large development proposals are rejected but somewhat unusual for a doughnut store.

In addition to taking the city to court, Batista has asked the city to approve a different version of a Dunkin' Donuts for the site. This time he says he wants to build a drive-through store, like the one on Danbury's Lake Avenue.

Because it would be smaller and because Batista now says the store would generate 498 car visits a day, not 500, the proposal qualifies for review by the Planning Department staff, not the Planning Commission, without a public hearing.

In the meantime, the neighbors are wondering what is happening to Danbury, not an uncommon feeling these days as development springs up everywhere and traffic clogs the streets.

"Our nice, quiet residential street is under siege," says Beverly McCarthy, who has lived on Springside Avenue for 50 years.

Batista certainly knows doughnuts better than the rest of us, so maybe a big legal fight over a doughnut shop on Springside Avenue isn't as odd as it seems.

But the money Batista is spending on this says something about the pressure facing Danbury from developers.

Older neighborhoods, elected officials, employees of the Planning Department and Danbury taxpayers are all under pressure. Turn a bad proposal down, the developers' message goes, and we'll sue you and run up the city's legal bills.

There were plenty of good reasons to turn down Batista's proposal for a Dunkin' Donuts on Springside Avenue. It's just not the best location for a business that will generate so much traffic. But instead of finding a different location, Batista is suing the city and offering a second proposal as a legal tactic.

Danbury has to get a handle on its growth and protect older neighborhoods from inappropriate development. It needs the help of developers to do that.

After public opposition, in their wisdom, the planning commission denied Batista's petition listing a whole host of concerns with the proposed location of the shop (you can read the Planning Commission decision by clicking here). Unfortunately (to make a long story short), Batista found a loophole that would allow him to have him Dunkin Donuts dream at the location, and bypass the decision of the Planning Commission, by fiddling around with the size of the coffee shop and lowering the amount of traffic below 500 (he got it down to aprox. 498).

This brings me to my CAMPAIGN SPOTLIGHT on Lynn Taborsak and Jim Kelly,

Unlike Cavo and Calandrino, Tabrosak and Kelly came out in support of the neighbors who fought this idiotic Dunkin Donuts plan from day one. In fact, as of today, I or many of the residents who fought Batista, never heard one comment about this plan of development from Cavo and Calandrino...nothing.

Whether it's the Dunkin Donuts development, portion of Tarrywile Park being swapped to a developer for a cluster home project, approving a SEVEN-YEAR tax giveaways to BRT, Cavo and Calandrino always seem to be on the side of developers over the outrage of the residents they swore to represent.

Later, I'll show how Cavo (President of the Common Council) took the term partisanship to a whole new level with his comments regarding the parade ordinance, local broadcasting of government meetings, and his comments regarding the discovery of racist emails from Majority Leader Pauline Basso and Planning Commissioner/Zoning Commission candidate Joel Urice. For now, here's my video interview with Taborsak and Kelly along with Clara Piece, one of the residents who fought against the Dunkin' Donuts project in her neighborhood.



(Video correction: Cavo and Calandrino voted in favor of the Tarrywile land swap for cluster housing. Video will be updated shortly).