Now, take this into consideration when we learn of the ORIGINAL estimates it would take to save the Richter House and keeps the arts at Richter (and not move them to...lets say THE IVES CENTER).
Rotello, who renovates old Victorian houses with her husband, Louie, disputed Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton's recent estimate of $1 million to renovate Richter House. Rotello's estimate is well below that figure.
"We did one Victorian house recently -- and we did have to open up the walls -- but the price was closer to $350,000 or $400,000," said Rotello, who owns several Victorian homes in the city, including ones on Pleasant Street, Harding Place and Division Street.
For you newcomers, homes on Pleasant Street, Harding Place and Division Street are JUST AS OLD is NOT OLDER than the Richter House. Also, Rotello's estimate is HIGHER then the estimate of 150,000 that Jane Didona stated it would take to save the house when she presented during the preliminary 20-year master plan for Richter Park on Wednesday night.
Make no mistake about this, politics is involved in this matter...and involved BIG TIME. Closing of the Richter House would be a complete insult to the family who DID NOT HAVE A GOLF COURSE in mind when they donated the land to the people of Danbury.
Hell, if the city can afford to give a land developer like BRT a seven-year tax break for something that's nothing more than a DORMITORY, they can fork over a portion of the cash to help save the house.
BONUS: I attended the meeting on Wednesday night and I'm working on re-creating the presentation that was shown to the public.
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.
