<xmp> <body> </xmp>

That thing about Caladrino and Cavo

Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Time: 11:33 AM


3rd Ward Councilman Mike Caladrino and Common Council President Joe Cavo
have some explaining to do...

In my reporting on the idiotic attempt to give away city owned land to Dr. Fry, I forget to mention two other Republicans who deserve credit in their attempt to push this deal through.

1. 3rd Ward Councilman Mike Caladrino:

If you watch the video clip
, you'll notice that Councilman Caladrino was so anxious to make a motion to APPROVE THE AD-HOC REPORT that he forgot to wait for Councilman Knapp to actually read the report into the record. This brings me to...

2. 3rd Ward Councilman/ Common Council President Joe Cavo:

It was 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo who seconded 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino's motion to APPROVE THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE REPORT.

If you MAKE A MOTION or SECOND the motion to TO APPROVE A REPORT, to usually because you approve of the measure so much that you have no problem bringing it to a vote. This is EXACTLY what 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino and 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo meant when they made and seconded the motion to APPROVE the ad-hoc report.

This begs the question:

  • Why would 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino and 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo make a motion to approve the ad-hoc report's recommendation THEN turn around and vote against the same report?

  • Why was 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino in such a rush to make a motion to approve the ad-hoc report (before the report could be read into the record) given the history with the land in question and knowledge of the public's past opposition to the deal?

    Why would 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino know about the public's past opposition you ask? Why because the land in question...84 Hospital Ave...THE 3RD WARD...you know, Cavo and Caladrino's WARD!

  • Why, after seeing the overwhelming negative response from the other council members, didn't 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino simply withdrawn his motion?

Here, I'll get to the obvious.

The Republicans screwed up and covered their asses. It's painfully obvious that this screw-job of a land deal was set to pass or else it would have never gotten to the floor in the first place. Remember Seabury's recommendation during the ad-hoc committee:
Mr. Seabury moved to recommend to the Council to approve the license agreement with active input from the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer

Althogh was NO input from the Director of Public Works and Traffic either at the ad-hoc committee OR at the council meeting that night, they (the Republicans) brought this item to the floor anyway.

Let's not forget:

Along with being a TEACHER, Seabury is also the MAJORITY LEADER of the Common Council. He's been around long enough to know about the past attempts by Dr. Fry to acquire this land and the disapproval from the council in regards to giving this piece of land away so WHY did he approve the ad-hoc report AND vote in favor of the deal WHILE stating during the ad-hoc committee that he doesn't recall a time ever when the council went against the recommendation of the Planning Department (who disapproved of the deal)?

Here are Seabury very words from the ad-hoc report:
Mr. Knapp stated the charge of the committee was to consider a request to lease land located at 84 Hospital Ave. Mr. Knapp said the report from the Planning Department was negative and asked Mr. Pinter to explain. Mr. Pinter said that the requirement of state law is to provide a report. The council would have to override a negative Planning Commission recommendation by a 2/3 vote. Mr. Seabury said that he didn't ever remember going against a Planning recommendation.

3rd Ward Councilmen Caladrino and Cavo's action exposes the fact that the Republicans on the council were moving forward with approving this deal plain and simple...what really happened is that there was a Republican absent which screwed the 2/3 majority needed to get this land deal passed. Once they knew that they didn't have ONE Democrat on board with the deal, the Republicans bailed out on the whole thing and left Knapp (whose a freshman) out to dry.

Does this give Knapp a pass? NO. He was the former chair of Zoning and should have had the foresight to simply extend the ad-hoc committee until more information was available (i.e. hearing testimony from Public Works and Traffic) as well as asking himself whether or not there were any opposition from the neighborhood towards this deal (and YES there is PLENTY of opposition from neighbors towards this deal as they've spoken up against this and other attempts to develop that stretch of road on Hospital Ave in the past (again the property is in the 3RD WARD, Caladrino's ward).

Whatever the case, although Knapp (and DEFINITELY Majority Leader Seabury) votes are bizarre, 3rd Ward Councilmen Cavo and Caladrino's vote to APPROVE THE REPORT makes absolutely NO SENSE given that they turned around and voted against the deal....unless their true intentions WAS THE APPROVE the deal (which definitely AND WITHOUT QUESTION would go against the majority of residents who live on Hospital Ave.) until they realized that they didn't have to votes to make it happen.

Oh...did I mention that the neighborhood (who has been opposed to any further development on that stretch of Hospital Ave) had NO IDEA about the land deal because they weren't notified by the city?

No heads up from 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo.

No heads up from 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino.

This brings back memories of the Terrywile land swap which brought about the bill by State Rep Joe Taborsak that requires any municipality to hold a public hearing whenever the city sells off city owned land (the case of Hospital Ave is different because of a land license loophole in Taborsak's bill that someone at City Hall found out).

to be continued...

UPDATE: Silly me, in m haste, I forgot to mention that Joe Cavo is ALSO a Councilman who is SUPPOSE to represent the 3rd Ward. The post has been updated to reflect that fact.

posted by ctblogger at 11:33 AM | Permalink|


Add a comment

© 2017 Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.


Lowest Gas Prices in Danbury
Danbury Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

make money online blogger templates

Danbury City Charter
Danbury Code of Ordinances
Robert's Rules of Order


Danbury 2005 election results
Danbury 2007 election results
Danbury 2009 election results
Danbury 2011 election results
Danbury 2013 election results
Danbury 2015 election results
City of Danbury calendar

The Mercurial
Danbury News Times
Danbury Patch
Danbury Daily Voice
Tribuna Newspaper
Danbury El Canillita
(Spanish edition)

Danbury El Canillita
(English translation)

Comunidade News
(Portuguese edition)

Comunidade News
(English translation)

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.



Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )

(02.25.08) Court docket

(10.24.07) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order

(09.26.07) Press Release

(12.14.06) Complaint

Barrera v. Boughton, No. 07-01436
(D. Conn. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

(02.25.08) Court Docket

Amended complaint

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint

NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies

(10.05.07 (VIDEO) Boughton mislead the public about Danbury's involvement in raid

(09.18.07) Yale Law Students expose Danbury involvement in raid

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Interview with Yale Law Students at FOI presser

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 FOI complaint media roundup

City Clerk Jean Natale standing next to skinhead sparks outrage

(10.03.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 rally

(09.29.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 case deepens

Word of raid spread across the country

(09/29/06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 protest news conference

(09/29/06) Immigrant newspaper "El Canillita" gives best account of ICE day labor raid at Kennedy Park


Dunkin Donuts logo