The confusion with this issue starts with the fact that this sewer extension proposal was initiated back in 1996 and that 12 years later, many in the neighborhood strongly oppose the sewer extension proposal. Members of the neighborhood presented the Council a petition against the extension as all as a map that outlined which property owners opposed the extension versus the map presented by the city.
Maps
City of Danbury survey map
Neighborhood petition map
Let me stress the importance in this case. Again, having a neighborhood hook up to the sewer can be a good thing or a very bad thing depending on the circumstances. I won't get into the details as the conversation between the members of the council (especially comments from Phil Curran and Tom Saadi) definitely laid out the pro and cons associated with approving or denying a neighborhood request for a sewer extension.
Ultimately, due to the opposition from the neighborhood, as well as questions that couldn't be answered at the time of the public hearing, it was the recommendation of the committee that this proposal be sent to an ad-hoc committee for further review.
The following is footage of the ENTIRE public hearing, which not only included the proposal in question but also another water-related item which centers on an interlocal water connection agreement between Danbury and Bethel (I'm comment on this agreement could lead to problems in the future at a later 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.
