Nothing symbolizes everything that's wrong with the current administration (irresponsible development, traffic, strain on resources, property taxes, cronyism, partisanship, political dishonesty), than the idiotic BRT tax deferral.
In honor of today's article on the backroom deal between BRT and Avalon (and most likely the mayor's office), where the last honest man in Danbury said the following load of nonsense:
BRT was given a seven-year tax deferral as an incentive from the city to redevelop the former Amphenol site.
The deal would keep the property's assessment at today's level for the condo owners for seven years after BRT finished the project.
What happens to that tax break if the property is sold is not known, Boughton said.
"If the project changes, it would have to come back to the Common Council," Boughton said.
Remember the KEY WORDS, if the project changes as our mayor BOUGHT-on is already showing his hands and he and BRT's slumlord Dan Bertram are probably looking for a loophole in the tax deferral just like the case with the Crosby Street dormitory apartments.
Here's a post I did in late October of last year on the petition against the BRT tax deferral.
From Wednesday, here's the unedited version of the BRT tax deferral press conference featuring Helena Abrantes, Common Council members, and candidates running for office.
The Helena Abrantes campaign has a section of their website dedicated to the BRT tax deferral. There you can read the News-Times article, as well as here WLAD's report, on the Democrats proposal and petition to rescind the deferral. All the information you'll ever need from Abrantes and the Democratic team is one click away.
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.
Surprise, surprise...who didn't see this one coming?
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.
