1. Item 10 of the agenda centers around a long, ongoing traffic problem on Pocono Lane. For those who don't knwo where this street is located, it's the street right next to Fast Freddie's off Exit 8 and trust me, those residents have a very difficult time pulling out of that street because of the traffic that comes off the interstate.
You can watch video footage of the public meeting for the proposal to do something about Pocono Lane by clicking here.
2. Item number 21 caused a rather heated exchange during the ad-hoc committee meeting. For those who don't know, the topic centers on who is responsible for snow that is plowed from one's driveway into the street. As WE ALL KNOW, plowers are notorious for plowing client's snow into the street which causes a hazard. The city has decided to hand out a fine to those who do this annoying practice BUT there is disagreement when it comes to how should receive the fine: the homeowner or the contractor.
Personally, I think the person responsible for placing the snow into the street is responsible, in which case it is the contractor and NOT the homeowner. Ultimately, the ad-hoc voted in favor of punishing the homeowner for the contractor's negligence...but not without some heated discussion. You can watch footage from the ad-hoc committee meeting by clicking here.
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.
