We, too, are devastated by the recent "assumed" evaluation of our property. Especially since we had a hike this year ($1,800) for not sending a report back on rentals (which we don't have).
As senior citizen brother and sister co-owners (with a 94-year-old mother/life use), we are basically sitting on acres of raw land with a Route 7 frontage that includes a 200-square-foot retail shop. We are on a state road and have no city/town services: sewer, water, etc. Yet we pay and pay and pay to have the DOT take acres on both sides of the property, reducing the land and its value.
[...]
Where does it end? We pay for a million-dollar policy on a shop open only weekends. We pay to have trespassers fish across our lake and rip down our "No Trespassing" signs. According to two prominent local lawyers, we have overpaid for decades. But the cost of fighting City Hall is prohibitive.
If the Danbury planning and zoning officials keep telling prospective buyers unfounded limitations, we'll never be able to sell and move to a more civilized area. With any luck, a nonprofit, nontaxable agency will save us in time.
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.
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.
