The last honest man in Danbury stoops to a new low.

Meanwhile, the mayor has said the truth about the ICE program is being lost amid hysteria.

"A lot of this hysteria -- and it really is hysteria -- is being generated by the ethnic press that has spread misinformation and by other people who have political points to gain," Boughton said, pointing to Comunidade News specifically.

This comes from a man who used the city's reverse 911 system for political purposes and fails to allow the common council to SEE THE MOU before voting on the program.

Hmmm, I don't remember seeing the mayor at any of the Comunidade forums where people on the panel (as well as Common Council member Paul Rotello who addressed the audience) not only accurately explained the ICE ACCESS program and it's timetable after it's approved, but informed the audience of their legal rights. How do I know, well I was at both forums and have the video to prove it...and if this mayor cared so much, he would have been there WITHOUT AN INVITATION. Hell, he would have REACHED OUT TO THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY the moment he introduced this program back IN OCTOBER.

...and why didn't Boughton say the same thing about his good friends at The Tribuna? Well, we'll touch on that LONG OVERDUE subject later, now is not the time.

Meanwhile, Comunidade Editor Breno da Mata nails it.

"It's funny that he blames my paper. He has to blame someone," da Mata said.

Even better...

Carmine Cohen, a U.S. citizen who has owned I C Video & Music on White Street for 10 years, began to weep Friday while discussing the ICE program. Her ethnic customers are scared.

"I'm Jewish. I can't sleep. I feel this stuff that is going on is like the Nazis," she said.

Finally, faced with the reality that Danbury is about to return to it's ghost town status, Boughton already has his LIE prepared.

Boughton said if people are leaving the city, it is probably because of the economic downturn, as evidenced by the low number of building permits issued and the high number of foreclosures in the area due to the subprime mortgage crisis.

"That has a bigger impact than whether we send two officers for training to Immigration and Customs Enforcement," Boughton said.

Economic downturn? Cue up his last State of the City Speech (from less than two months ago) please...

Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to report to you today that City of Danbury is in strong financial shape, maintaining the highest credit and bond ratings in our city's history.

As I speak to you here today, Danbury is experiencing strong economic growth and has the lowest unemployment rate in the State of Connecticut.

Our taxes continue to be some of the lowest in the state, and our sewer and water rates continue to be 100% below the state average.

While the downturn in the residential real estate market has impacted many areas, Danbury continues to be a desirable place to raise a family. Our business community continues to enjoy a positive economic climate and a positive outlook.

From economic growth to economic downturn in LESS THAN TWO MONTHS!

The subprime crisis has nothing to do with LEGAL ethnic businesses SUDDENLY leaving the area and Boughton knows it. Think I'm kidding, go ask a member of the DaSilva and Jowdy family. Hell, the subprime crisis of the country, hasn't impacted Danbury or Fairfield County significantly yet and if anyone took two seconds to look up the data, they'd know that Boughton is LYING.

This is just another is a long line of dishonest statements from a man who can't help himself from not being straight with the people of Danbury. Let's recap the dishonesty:

• I didn't know that money from Galante was bundled

• The celebrations of the World Cup games was prior planning because me and the chief of Police planned for it.

• DanburyPD played no role in the arrest of 11 day laborers at Kennedy Park.

• We'll make sure the sex offender loopholes are fixed as soon as possible in an ad-hoc committee.

• We'll make sure the parade ordinance problems are fixed as soon as possible in an ad-hoc committee

• The magnet school was MY creation.

• The new parking garage was My creation.

• The BRT tax giveaway is great for Danbury.

• Elmer's Diner is the fault of the previous administration...in fact everything wrong with Danbury is the fault of the previous administration.

Nazi Germany...it's a sad day when that comparison is being made about Danbury and unfortunately, it's being made more and more everyday as the Republican-endorsed/xenophobia inspired ethnic cleansing of the immigrant community continues.

Boughton's Danbury=the armpit of Connecticut.

In my many years of following the activities of the last honest man (better known to many as Mayor Mark Boughton), I've never seen so much anger directed towards him then right now.

I think the anti-immigrant xenophobes are really underestimating the amount of venom that's out there right now but I'm sure after Feb 6th, they'll have a VERY VERY CLEAR understanding of the sleeping giant they've awaken.

Until then, here's another letter blasting Boughton's boneheaded decision to use the topic of immigration for political purposes...

Here's an analysis of the numbers courtesy of My Left Nutmeg.

David Cappiello

1. ... hasn't put one nickel of his own money into his campaign. The mortgage industry is not as profitable as I'd been led to believe.
2. ... as Gabe had mentioned at CTLP, spent 74% of the money he raised before the quarter was over.

   And weirdly – since most candidates and staffers are very conscious of "the numbers" – Cappiello and his staffers basically raided the account in the last 24 hours of the quarter, to the tune of just under $11,000. Why trade a 10% difference in burn rate for just one day of waiting for your reimbursements? That goes against what (in my experience) is the natural instinct of anyone even marginally serious about the campaign they're working on.

3. ... got 5 large from GOP Congressman Eric Cantor. Shays got $10K. Someone run against that guy!
4. ... is employing 2 fundraising consulting firms, both of which are out of state.

---

Shays:

1. A $1619.66 in-kind contribution from Douglas Brandrup (totalling $3919.66 for the year), who was one of the contributors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.

   As a side note, the maximum contribution is $2300 for either a primary or general election, but Brandrup's in-kind was almost certainly consumed in the "primary" period. Legally, Shays may have to return this $1619.66, since the earlier $2300 was clearly designated for the primary period.
   

2. Paul Pimentel spent some time working for the campaign before going to work for McKinney. He was paid $683.33 for each of three months.
   


3. The only newspaper the campaign subscribes to? The Norwalk Hour.
   


4. WAL-PAC! $2500 from Wal-Mart's political action committee.
   


5. Just a little fun tidbit: Shays received $500 from one Brad Renner, a Washington resident who shares with the Congressman an inclination to go apeshit at people taping meetings :)
   


6. Unified field theory of GOP malfeasance alert: Edward Schmults, former Deputy AG, helped Saint Ronnie and Ted Olson block investigations into Reagan's EPA and mishandling of Superfund monies. The original fight was over "election tracking" of Superfund spending – politically-motivated timing designed to help GOP candidates in close congressional races (sound familiar?) – but of course, the coverup is always worse than the crime. Schmults was the object of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry for withholding documents from Congressional investigators, and he and Olson escalated a legal fight all the way up to the Supreme Court arguing that independent counsel investigations are unconstitutional. Now he's passing checks to the man who wants to run Congressional oversight – $1250 worth.
   


7. The "Professional Services Council" PAC, Blackwater's trade association, is in for $1000.

   Other members of this trade group include CACI (Abu Ghraib staffing), Development Alternatives Inc (violent overthrow of Chavez), Anteon International ("specializing in simulators and training of interrogators"), and Titan Corporation (also staffed Abu Ghraib). I suppose not a lot of Congresspeople would take contributions from "MercenaryPAC", so I wonder if Shays might consider throwing this check back.
   
   

8. Those delightful tele-town-halls that Shays held? $1086.72. Money spent on screening participants to make sure DTC members and Democratic candidates weren't in on the calls? Zero, as several of you are aware :)


9. Money sent to bolster John McCain's flagging presidential bid: $0.


10. Shays spending breakdown:
    
    • Salary: $25968
    • Fundraising consultants: $30371
    • Events: $6930
    • Printing/postage: $13773
    • Other professional services: $6595
    • Donations to other candidates: $6000
    • Office costs: $9379 (actually $3000 higher, with 1 months rent paid in Q3)

    That's $51,000 spent to raise just over $310K – or, if you take into account that his press releases and constituent meetings and policy research are all funded by taxpayer dollars (meaning "salary" in advance of television and direct mail planning is basically more fundraising consulting), a mind-blowing $77,000 – 25 cents out of every dollar.

(FYI: Boughton's 2007 finance report analysis will be our first segment on the new HatCityBLOG-TV local access show).

With the Democratic presidential primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton gaining more attention in Connecticut, and the latest polls showing a statistical tie between the two heavyweights, endorsements are popping up all over the place...even in Danbury.

Yesterday local Democrats gathered at the Library and held a press conference in support of Clinton.

Democratic leaders from Newtown and Danbury urged residents to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's Democratic primary.

"Her positions are right and correct for this country," former U.S. Rep. James Maloney said, touting Clinton's universal health care plan.

Democrats showing support for Clinton on Thursday afternoon during a press conference in front of the Danbury Library included state Rep. Jason Bartlett, D-Bethel; former Newtown Selectman Joseph Bojnowski, Danbury Town Clerk Lori Kaback, Danbury Central Labor Council president Jim Juliano, and Mary Consoli, president of Danbury Nurses Union, Unit 47.

"Her experience brings credibility to the fact we're going to have real change in this country come January of next year," said Bartlett, adding that Clinton has the experience necessary "to turn our economy around."

Here's my video report from yesterday's presser.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've received a number of inquiries and request from the media for background information/material on Mayor Boughton, James Galante, Elise Marciano and the anti-immigrant activity and acts of racism in the area.

If you're a member of the media and are looking for material on Boughton, PLEASE email me only at hatcityblog@yahoo.com. I've have over three years of video material available as well as a detailed collection of notes, minutes, finance statements and documents but it's difficult to keep up with the request if you attempt to contact me through my other email addresses.

Again, please use the following email address: hatcityblog@yahoo.com. Thanks in advance.

UPDATE: Some of the inquiries on Boughton can only be found using high-end service such as Lexis-Nexis. It's best to contact me before Monday as it might take me a while to search through my archives for your requests.

Again, thanks in advance.

The AP has the details:

Connecticut Congressmen John Larson and Chris Murphy threw their support to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Thursday ahead of his planned visit to the state next week.

Larson, whose 1st District includes Hartford and the surrounding towns, is vice chairman of the House Democratic caucus. Murphy, whose 5th District covers the western part of the state, is a freshman House member.

The two plan to formally announce their endorsements at a Saturday rally. Obama's campaign said he will visit the state Monday, the day before Connecticut and 21 other states hold their Super Tuesday primaries.

I'll be at the rally for Obama o Saturday and hopefully get an interview with Congressman Murphy.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign issued this statement regarding the endorsement.

In John Larson and Chris Murphy, Connecticut has two leaders who are commited to working for change in Connecticut and turning the page on business-as-usual in Washington . As Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, John has played a key role in shaping the agenda for our new Democratic majority. During his race for Congress, Chris showed when we come together and speak out for change, we can bring new people into the process and fight for policies that matter to ordinary Americans. I’m looking forward to working alongside John and Chris to [strengthen] our movement for change across Connecticut in these critical closing days before the February 5 primary.

Oh my GOD, if you weren't at last night's Planning Commission meeting, you missed a public hearing for the ages! Let's just say that there were so many residents in attendance that the Fire Department almost shut down the chambers.

First, I must apologize to the residents of the 4th ward for not being able to videotape the entire meeting. Unfortunately, I left my power supply for by camcorder at home and I only had enough power to capture the opposition to the proposal. I REALLY wish I recorded the remarks from Joe Putman's attorney's after the public spoke as it was COMPLETELY over the top, if not offensive.

The crew from DanburyLive was on the scene and I requested that they stay for the entire meeting as I was unable to record everything. I think Ivon stayed around to record all the opinions of the public but I'm unsure if he captured the attorney's remarks afterwards.

Second, I tip my hat off to Tom Saadi and the those residents in the 4th ward who are working tirelessly to keep their neighbors informed about the proposal. In all my years of covering City Hall, I never seen such a large amount of WELL-INFORMED residents really fighting for their neighborhood. If only we had more people fighting like you guys...

Lastly, I'll post the video footage that I was able to capture later today. I'm also going to update this entire site with a special section devoted to the Transfer Station saga.

Keep up the fight guys...you're making those who fight against irresponsible development very proud!

With a deep sense of apprehension growing in Danbury within the immigrant community, more people are speaking out and expressing their anger towards the Boughton administration.

In my latest installment of the "Voice of those who are being ignored" series, attorney Tom Wolfe gives offers his reasons behind why the ICE ACCESS program is unnessacary and will have a crippling economic impact in Danbury.

Courtesy of those pesky Yale law students that are about to expose just how dishonest Mark Boughton really is when it comes to being truthful with the public.

On March 8, 2007, the Worker & Immigrant Rights Clinic submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (a division of the Department of Homeland Security), seeking a variety of documents related to so-called 287(g) Memoranda of Understanding (or "Agreement") (MOUs) between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ÏCE) and various states and counties.

On January 17, 2008, U.S. Immigation and Customs Enforcement responded in part to the request by producing thirty-four (34) MOUs entered into by ICE and various states and counties. ICE has also represented that it will disclose further records. It has withheld some documents responsive to the initial FOIA request, claiming several statutory exemptions (as to law enforcement interest and privacy, among others).

You can go to Yale's website and download individual MOUs fot the 34 cities or you can just click here and download all of them at once (warning: file is aprox. 60 meg).

The power of FOIA is amazing...

In the next installment in the "Voices of those who are being ignored" series centers around people who came forward to express their anger towards the anti-immigrant policy of Mayor Boughton and the anti-Latino xenophobia that has poisoned Danbury.

Here's a comment from an assistant of an immigration lawyer who works closely with the immigrant community and has strong feelings about what is currently happening in the area.

---

You can view the other clips in the series below:

Video clip 1: ICE ACCESS is the product of extremists.
Video clip 2: Police misconduct and harassment.
Video clip 3: Pregnant woman assulted by anti-immigrants.

The Stamford Advocate has the details surrounding last night's Republican presidential candidate stand-in forum where Mark Nielsen Mark Boughton represented Mitt Romney's campaign.

While the nation focused on Florida's presidential primary, about 100 people filled the Brubeck Room at Wilton Public Library last night to take part in a different kind of Republican election event.

Surrogates - not candidates - took to the dais to field questions from members of the Wilton Republican Town Committee and the public about the best choice for the Oval Office: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

State Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, spoke on behalf of Giuliani. Danbury Mayor Mark D. Boughton represented Romney, and Ben Proto of Stratford, a state campaign co-chairman, touted McCain in the forum.

[...]

The debate, which ran from 8 to 10 p.m., included questions on the economy, immigration, foreign policy, security, energy and education.

With Guiliani dropping out of the race, and Mike Huckabee's campaign on life-support, the race for the Republican presidential nomination comes down to a fight between Romney and "Amnesty" McCain.

One thing is for sure, with the senator from Nevada Arizona that conservatives call a "Republican in Name Only" a heartbeat away from securing the nomination, one has to wonder what ever happened to that illegal immigration issue?

NOTE: The last debate before the Feb primary will be on CNN tonight.

The latest round in the battle between residents and developers happens tonight as the Planning Commission hear from the public regarding the Transfer Station proposal on Plumtrees Road.

I'm a little behind in covering this story and for that, I apologize to the residents of the 4th Ward who are working tirelessly to stop this transfer station in it's tracks. For a primer for tonight, later I'll update this post with links to the first and second public hearing as well as the open forum held before the proposal was presented to the commission. For now, here's a copy of the recent traffic report that was done on the proposal and submitted to the Planning and zoning Department (note the conclusion on the report).

CITY OF DANBURY

155 DEER HILL AVENUE

DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FARID L. KHOURI, P.E.

(203) 797-4641 CITY ENGINEER

FAX (203) 796-1586

January 10, 2008

MEMO TO: Chief Alan Baker

Local Traffic Authority

FROM: Abdul Barry Mohamed

Traffic Engineer

Subject: MSW Associates, LLC

16 Plumtrees Road

Planning Code No. SE 664

I have reviewed the submitted site plans dated January 5, 2007 revised through September 25, 2007 prepared by Anchor Engineering Services, Inc. as well as the accompanying site Traffic Impact and Access Analysis dated September, 2007 prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., for the proposed transfer station on Plumtrees Road. To facilitate our work, several literature has been utilized in the review. This includes the following:

• Section 22a-209 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA)

• US EPA Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making, 2002

• AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001
• TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 505, 2004
• ConnDOT Traffic Accidents and Volume Data Reports, 2004-2006
• State of Connecticut Solid Waste Management Plan, Amended 2006

• Email correspondence from Jonathon Chew, Executive Director, HVCEO to Sharon Calitro, Deputy Planning Director, January 3, 2008 regarding safety issues along Newtown Road HVCEO Data on traffic safety along Newtown Road.

A: Traffic Generation

Waste Transfer facilities are predominantly dependent on the use of heavy vehicles for their operations. Collection trucks are normally single unit (SU) trucks with 8-10 tons capacity and measuring up to 40 feet in length. Transfer tucks are normally interstate semi-trailers with 20-30 tons capacity and measuring up to 70 feet in length.

In accordance with Table 5 of the project Traffic Impact & Access Analysis, it is expected that the proposed site will generate a total of 284 vehicle trips a day. Ninety- two (92) percent or 260 of the total site generated trips will be composed of heavy trucks traffic.

B: Source and Destination of Waste

Waste Transfer facilities are generally beneficial to host communities when small trucks are utilized in the collection of waste from local neighborhoods and large semi trailers are used for long haul transportation of consolidated materials to landfills and/ or Waste-to-Energy Incinerators. In such cases, the negative effects of the heavy trucks traffic are normally off-set by the value of the garbage collection and disposal services rendered to the community.

However, when a Waste Transfer facility is predominantly involved in the importation of waste, a host community normally suffers as such facilities create insignificant benefits to off-set their negative effects. Therefore, in order to clearly determine effects of the proposed facility it is requested that the applicant provide information regarding source and destination of the waste material that will be handled. This request is consistent with the requirements of Section 22a-209-4 (iii) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies on Solid Waste Management.

C: Passenger Car Equivalency

Based on size, weight and power-to-weight ratio, trucks and semi-trailers are difficult to maneuver and slow in their acceleration. They occupy more roadway space and require gentle slopes and smooth curves. As a result, they generally decrease roadway capacity and contribute to traffic congestion. Each single axle truck is considered to be equivalent to 1.5 - 2.0 passenger cars. Therefore, in order to fully determine the impact of the site generated traffic at critical intersections, it is requested that the heavy truck trips to be generated by the proposed site be converted into passenger cars and the result be utilized in the evaluation of operations at roadway intersections.

D: Impact of Site Traffic on Newtown Road, easterly of Plumtrees Road

In accordance with the project Traffic Impact and Access Analysis, fifty (50) percent of the site traffic will travel to and from Newtown Road, easterly of Plumtrees Road intersection. However, based on the most current ConnDOT data, the roadway experiences a relatively high number of accidents. During the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006 a total of 276 vehicle crashes were recorded. This translates to an average of 445 accidents per mile or 92 accidents per year. Most of the accidents are turning and rear-end types of accidents. We are concerned that the heavy trucks traffic to be generated by the facility would exacerbate the current roadway safety condition. .

E: Impact of Site Traffic on Newtown Road, westerly of Plumtrees Road

The project Traffic Impact & Access Analysis also indicates that twenty- five (25) percent of the site generated traffic will travel along the westerly section of Newtown Road between Plumtrees Road and Old Shelter Road intersections. The two-lane roadway currently carries 26,000 vehicles daily. During the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006 a total of 228 vehicle crashes were recorded. This translates to an average 422 vehicle crashes per mile or of 76 vehicle crashes per year.

It should also be noted that according to HVCEO, the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation has identified a least six locations along the roadway to be among the major traffic accidents sites in the State. We, therefore, seek information from the applicant as to what mitigating measures would be implemented to rectify or ensure that the site generated heavy trucks traffic would not make the current condition much worse.

F: Impact at the Intersection of Newtown Road and Plumtrees Road

The applicant’s projections indicate that seventy-five (75) percent of the site generated traffic will utilize the intersection of Newtown Road and Plumtrees Road. However, the project Traffic Impact & Access Analysis indicates that currently the queue length for ninety five (95) percentile of the westbound left turning traffic volume from Newtown Road into Plumtrees Road exceeds the existing lane capacity.

In addition, based on the 2004-2006, the intersection experiences a relatively high average accident rate of fifteen (15) vehicle crashes per year. The majority of the accidents involve turning and rear-end types of accidents. We seek information from the applicant regarding the proposed mitigating measures that would be taken to alleviate the negative effects that would be caused by the site generated traffic.

G: Restriction on to use Shelter Rock Road for Access

Page 15 of the project Traffic Impact & Access Analysis indicates that at least twenty-five (25) percent site generated traffic would travel to and from the southerly section of Plumtrees Road. We recognize that due to the existing steep vertical grades and sharp horizontal curves along the roadway, no vehicle trips to be generated by the facility have been assigned to Shelter Rock Road. However, based on the proximity of the roadway to the site as well as its ability to provide a short-cut access to other parts of the City of Danbury as well as the Town of Bethel, we request that potential impact on the use of the roadway be evaluated. It should be noted that neither the applicant nor the City of Danbury will have the ability to monitor, enforce or restrict use of the roadway by private haulers.

H: Noise, Vibrations and Emissions

The heavy trucks traffic to be generated by the site will cause noise, vibrations and emissions when accessing the site, during loading and unloading of waste, dropping and picking up of containers as well as when queuing or idling at the weight scale. It is our concern that these negative impacts will affect the quality of life of the residential developments located that along Payne Road, Plumtrees Road, Shelter Rock Road as well as the low income housing development that abuts the proposed facility. The degree to which these impacts may be considered nuisance or harmful are to be determined by the Planning Commission.

I: Size of the Proposed Facility

Page 9 of the US EPA Manual for Decision-Making on Transfer Stations provides a series of formulas that help to determine capacity of proposed transfer facilities. Based on tipping floor space, a 11,000 square foot facility has a capacity to handle a maximum of 350 tons of waste per day.

In addition, Section 22a-209-9 (2) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies on Solid Waste Management indicates that the proposed facility would be required to provide a twenty-four (24) hours storage capacity. Therefore, based on the US EPA and State DEP information on capacity requirements, it likely that the request to process 500 tons per day is far be far and beyond the ability of the facility. Any reduction in the tonnage to be processed per day would have a direct effect in the reduction of site generated traffic. For this reason, we seek the following:

• Information on calculations of design capacity of the facility.
• Information on size and location of the twenty-four 24 hours storage capacity as required by CT DEP.

J: Design of Site Driveway

Although it is stated on Page 2 of the project Traffic Impact & Access Analysis that the site driveway shall be designed to accommodate large vehicles, this does not appear to be the case. It is our opinion that the design of the driveway at or within its close proximity of Plumtrees Road lacks the necessary features for safe and efficient operation of semi-trailers. The design features that need to be incorporated in the site plans are as follows:

• Provision of adequate turning path width for entering and exiting interstate (WB-62) semi-trailers. In accordance with AASHTO, 45 feet turning path widths are required for both entering and existing traffic. Absence of the feature would result in unsafe potential conflicts between the inbound and outbound traffic.

• The maximum vertical grade for the driveway within 100 feet, measured from the back of the street sidewalk into the site should be reduced from about eight (8) per cent to three (3) percent. AASHTO indicates that heavy trucks generally decrease speed by up to seven (7) percent or more when ascending vertical grades and increase speeds by up to five (5) percent or more when on downgrades. The reduction in grade will facilitate smooth transition of heavy trucks from Plumtrees Road into the site as well as allow easy stoppage at the STOP line while exiting the site, especially during inclement weather conditions.

• US EPA recommends that both deceleration lanes and turning lanes be provided at Waste Transfer facilities so as to separate heavy trucks from the stream of general traffic and, therefore, enhance traffic operations. For this reason, it is requested that within 150 feet on both sides of the site driveway, Plumtrees Road is to be widened to provide a northbound exclusive left-turn lane and southbound deceleration lane into the site. Rights-of-way within the earmarked roadway improvements is partially owned by the applicant and the City of Danbury.

K: Site Traffic Circulation

Several concerns are raised relative to design layout of site. These include the following:

• The site lacks signage and pavement markings to direct or guide the flow of traffic. It is not clear as to whether the inbound vehicles would be required to bear to the right or the left of the scale house.

• It appears that the weight scale shown on the site is intended to cater for both the inbound collection trucks and the outbound semi trailers. In order to minimize confusions and potential unsafe conditions, the EPA Manual on Transfer Stations, recommends that separate scales for inbound and outbound vehicles are to be provided at such facilities.

• In order to access the weight scale, the outbound traffic is required to cross the inbound flow of traffic. It is recommended that traffic control signage and markings be provided in the area. In is also required sightline information being provided.

• The US EPA Manual for Decision-Making recommends that buildings at Waste Transfer facilities should be arranged such that to eliminate or minimize the need for vehicle back-up movements. It is for this reason that we are concerned regarding the design layout the facility loading bays as they would require semi-trailers to make frequent potentially unsafe backing maneuvers. It is therefore, requested that the layout of the building or the loading bays be reviewed and revised.

• The site is to be provided with at least one (1) handicap space. The space is to be located within close proximity of the administrative office/ main facility building.

L: Summary and Conclusions

It is my professional opinion that this application as submitted, may result in conditions that would adversely affect traffic safety and cause undue traffic congestion. This opinion is based on the following reasons:

1. The applicant has not provided information relative to source and final destinations of the waste materials, therefore, the cumulative broader impacts to the environment, including an assessment of air emissions; infrastructure and noise impacts are currently unknown.

2. The intersection of Newtown Road and Plumtrees Road as well as the section of the roadway easterly of the intersection are operating poorly. Unless of improved, it appears that the site generated trucks traffic would make the existing condition much worse.

3. Due to its physical characteristics, we are concerned regarding the potential use of Shelter Rock Road for access to and from the facility. The City or the applicant will not have ability to monitor, control or enforce utilization of the roadway by private haulers.

4. We are concerned regarding the negative impacts on quality of life for those residing within close proximity of the facility as well as along its access routes in terms noise, vibrations and emissions that would be generated by the trucks traffic.

5. Much is desired in the design of the site driveway in terms of its ability to accommodate semi-trailer traffic. In addition, the flow traffic along the site frontage need to be enhanced.

6. Internally, the site lacks traffic signage and markings to direct the flow of traffic.

7. The layout of the facility loading bays would require semi-trailers to make frequent unsafe backing maneuvers into a one-way exit driveway.

8. We have questions regarding the processing and storage capacity of the proposed facility. Revision of its daily tonnage capacity to the appropriate level would have a direct effect in the reduction of its negative impacts.

Chapter 4 of the Sate of Connecticut Solid Waste Management Plan, amended 2006 advises that as part of the review and approval process of new Waste Management facilities, the public is to be made fully aware of the need and impacts of the new proposals through a robust participation process. It is within this framework that this report has been prepared.

Okay, here's an assignment for everyone.

For your viewing pleasure, here's video footage of Mayor Boughton's "open space bond" selling pitch towards members of the Danbury Land Trust.

I want to see how many misleading statements/inaccuracies you can pick from Mayor Boughton's presentation as well as take notice to a very important point I directed to the mayor.

Later today I'll break this presentation down, point out Boughton's misleading statements, explain how the John Pirro of the News-Times TOTALLY OVERLOOK key parts of Boughton's misleading remarks, and highlight the dangers in being a low-information voter.

Now, this ISN'T about whether or not the bond is a good thing or not, it's about what happens when you enlighten yourself, and ACTUALLY pay attention to what the mayor is selling you.

Knowledge is power and hopefully, you'll learn something about why it's important to be skeptical of the mayor's remarks and the REAL details of this bond BEFORE you cast your vote...hopefully.

In my on-going series of video interviews from members of the immigrant community, here's another tale of a story of anti-immigrant racism that fell through the cracks in Danbury.

One of the things that angers me the most about the anti-immigrant community is the number of race-related acts of violence and intimidation goes on unnoticed and/or ignored in Danbury.

From:

• Members of Elise Marciano's anti-immigrant organization (including Marciano's then Vice President John McGowan) being thrown out and banned from Pippa's due to harassing customers who were immigrants,

• Members of Marciano's group harassing an immigrant employee of TKs (including following the employee around the bar with a video camera which almost resulted in a large scale fight),

• Marciano's Vice President McGowan degrading an immigrants rights march by walking behind the people and desecrating a Mexican flag,

• Marciano's Vice President McGowan calling on members of the immigrant community to be killed and,

• Marciano's members and supporters utter a slew of racial slurs towards immigrants,

The violent nature of those who claim to be only in favor of "law enforcement" is insulting to those who follow their movement and document their rhetoric.

Case in point...watch this clip:



This story is just one of many I heard since I first started this site and unfortunately I'm sure it won't be the last.

Remember, it's not about illegal immigration, it's about anti-immigrant extremism, and xenophobia. There IS a difference.

---

You can watch the other video clips in the "voice of those who are being ignored below):
Video Clip 1: ICE ACCESS is the product of extremists.
Video Clip 2: Police harassment and misconduct.

Several people emailed me wondering what was the big surprise I revealed during last week's episode of the cable access show "Ideas at Work and Beyond."

Well, for those who missed it...watch the ending credits.

From setting the record straight regarding local access talking heads who consistently LIE, and outing and exposing the political connections of other writers who thought they were anonymous, to unloading my three years worth of video and audio material and offering a look at a different side of Danbury, moving this site forward to television is the first step in expanding this site to a full scale media service in HatCity.

The first four episodes are almost done and if everything goes right, we'll be on the air sometime in March.

"We're facing these problems that are relatively new to Danbury because of a shrinking supply of land and over-development."

Dennis Elpern: Director, planning and zoning department comments regarding the construction of Dunkin Donuts on the corner of Springside and Osborne.

Host: John Goglietino
Topic: MCCA Organization
Guest MCCA President Joe Sullivan and Community Relations Specialist Kay Schreiber

In honor of Eugene Driscoll's piece on the Ed Batista's "dream to have a Dunkin Donuts in every ward of Danbury" project on the corner of Springside and Osborne, here's a montage of my coverage on this god-awful project.

---

Nov 5 2007:

As many of you know, I've been following this land-use battle for the last two years videotaping all the planning commission meetings as well as meeting with neighbors in the area who were upset with the project.

One of the things that really upsetting to residents alongside Springside was the fact that their representatives on the Common Council were no where to be found and would not comment on this issue..well at least the Common Council members that represented the third ward.

Common Council member at large (at the time) Lynn Taborsak and Democratic Town Committee 3rd ward rep Jim Kelly were very open in their opposition to the proposal and assisted the neighbors in terms of helping them understand the planning commission public hearing process. Through their help, the Common Council chambers were flooded with residents who spoke out in opposition to the proposal, which was ultimately denied.

In this video clip shot last year, Carla Pierce (quoted in the News-Times piece) joined Kelly and Taborsak and described how the two Democrats stood up for the neighborhood against irresponsible developers such as Batista.

---

Feb 19 2007:

Eduardo Batista has found that local residents like Dunkin' Donuts coffee and other products and has expanded his franchise throughout the region.

His latest proposal is to build a Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue in Danbury. It's one of the city's older neighborhoods, and the neighbors are upset.

Batista previously proposed a larger Dunkin' Donuts store for the site, which was rejected last fall by the Danbury Planning Commission.

Batista is taking the city to court over that rejection, a common tactic when large development proposals are rejected but somewhat unusual for a doughnut store.

In addition to taking the city to court, Batista has asked the city to approve a different version of a Dunkin' Donuts for the site. This time he says he wants to build a drive-through store, like the one on Danbury's Lake Avenue.

Because it would be smaller and because Batista now says the store would generate 498 car visits a day, not 500, the proposal qualifies for review by the Planning Department staff, not the Planning Commission, without a public hearing.

In the meantime, the neighbors are wondering what is happening to Danbury, not an uncommon feeling these days as development springs up everywhere and traffic clogs the streets.

"Our nice, quiet residential street is under siege," says Beverly McCarthy, who has lived on Springside Avenue for 50 years.

Batista certainly knows doughnuts better than the rest of us, so maybe a big legal fight over a doughnut shop on Springside Avenue isn't as odd as it seems.

But the money Batista is spending on this says something about the pressure facing Danbury from developers.

Older neighborhoods, elected officials, employees of the Planning Department and Danbury taxpayers are all under pressure. Turn a bad proposal down, the developers' message goes, and we'll sue you and run up the city's legal bills.

There were plenty of good reasons to turn down Batista's proposal for a Dunkin' Donuts on Springside Avenue. It's just not the best location for a business that will generate so much traffic. But instead of finding a different location, Batista is suing the city and offering a second proposal as a legal tactic.

Danbury has to get a handle on its growth and protect older neighborhoods from inappropriate development. It needs the help of developers to do that.

---

Feb 24 2007:

Here's the original resolution of denial from the planning commission and planning department. Take note of the section in bold that had to due with the traffic and safety concerns, which played a large role in Batista finding a loophole in the law where he could get the amount of trips per day under 500 and sidestep the planning commission.

or, as I stated back then:

Now, if you read the portions of the resolution in bold, you'll notice that the the points raised in the denial HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF THE DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING and more to do with the VARIOUS PROBLEMS THAT WOULD RESULT IF THE BUSINESS WAS BUILT IN THE LOCATION.

As an added bonus, I took pictures and shot video of the location to give those who are not familiar with the area a better understanding of the traffic nightmare for the residents of Springside.

First, here are two images of the Osborne Street/Springside Ave intersection. The proposed Dunkin Donuts site is boxed in red in the second image.





...and keep the odd location of the site as well as the slope of Springside Ave in mind when you watch the video.


Now, here's the letter of denial from the planning commission:

Denial of Special Exception/Site Plan Application for SE 644 Dunkin Donuts Osborne Street

CITY OF DANBURY
155 DEER HILL AVENUE
DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810

PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
(203) 797-4525
(203) 797-4586 (FAX)

Resolution: Dated September 15, 2006
Revised and Adopted on September 20, 2006

To: Planning Commission

From: Jennifer L. Emminger, Associate Planner

Re: SE 644
Dunkin Donuts
Osborne Street and Springside Avenue
Assessor's Lot # 112221

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

Whereas the City of Danbury Planning Commission received an application on March 15, 2006 from Artel Engineering, agent for Eduardo Batista, for approval of a Special Exception/Site Plan for Dunkin Donuts, a 2,160 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with a drive-thru located at the comer of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue, and

Whereas pursuant to • 3.E.2 of the Zoning Regulations, the use is allowed as a special exception in the CG-20 Zoning District upon approval by the Planning Commission affirming that standards and conditions pertaining thereto have been met, and

Whereas the site plan, as modified by the applicant, includes a 2,160 square foot Dunkin' Donuts facility with a drive-thru, and associated driveway access, parking, landscaping and drainage improvements, and

Whereas in accordance with 9 8.7d of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing that opened on May 17,2006, continued on June 21,2006 and July 26, 2006 and closed on August 19, 2006, and

Whereas the following maps and plans have been received and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City , staff:

 1.Maps under the general title "Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street, City of Danbury, Fairfield County, Connecticut', prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC:

  A. Subtitled 'Cover Sheet', dated 10/13/05;
  B. Subtitled 'Site Plan', dated 10/13/05-revised through 7/19/06;
  C. Subtitled 'Grading and Utility Plan', dated 10/13/05-revised 6/27/06;
  D. Subtitled 'Landscape and Lighting Plan', dated 1 0/13/05-revised through 7/19/06;
  E. Subtitled 'Sediment & Erosion Control Plan', dated 10/13/05-revised 6/27/06;
  F. Subtitled 'Site Details 1', dated 10/13/05;
  G. Subtitled 'Site Details n', dated 10/13/05;
  H. Subtitled 'Truck Turning Plan', dated 6/27/06
  I. Subtitled 'Existing Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05 and
  J. Subtitled 'Proposed Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05.

 2. Plans under the general title "Dunkin Donuts", Prepared by James D. Smith Architects, dated 6/13/06:

  A. Sheet AI0 - Subtitled 'Proposed Exterior Elevations' and
  B. Sheet AII-8ubtitled 'Proposed Exterior Elevations.

 3. Survey titled "Improvement Location Survey, Showing Property of Bruce J. Daab, property situated at Osborne Street and Springside Avenue", prepared by Surveying Associates, P.C., dated November 18, 2005.

 4. Site Engineering Report, Prepared for Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street and Springside Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut, Prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC, dated March 2006.

 5. Traffic Study, Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street & Springside Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut, Prepared for Artel Engineering, Prepared by Barkan & Mess Associates, dated March 14,2006.

 6. Report titled "Planned Development Osborne Street, Danbury, CT, Environmental Acoustics Study", Prepared by David Taylor, dated June 2006.

 7. The following documents were submitted during the Public Hearing held on May 17, 2006:

  A. A petition titled "We say No to Application for Special Exception to allow Dunkin Donuts Generating 500 Cars Daily JI221 SE 644 Osborne Street" and
  B. Exhibit A - Correspondence trom Beverly McCarthy, 9 Springside Avenue.

 8. Photos of truck deliveries at other Dunkin Donuts facilities were submitted during the Public Hearing held on July 19,2006.

 9. Correspondence received by the Planning and Zoning Department on June 6, 2006 from Patricia Tallman.

 10. Correspondence received by the Planning and Zoning Department on June 6, 2006 from Valerie Bose.

Whereas, during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the application, raising specific concerns regarding the proposed entrance on Springside Avenue, on site traffic circulation, off site traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, steepness of Springside Avenue at the intersection, weather conditions affecting intersection safety, compatibility with the residential neighborhood, sound, customer parking along Springside Avenue, truck deliveries, screening, landscaping and the aesthetics of the building, and

Whereas, pursuant to ~ 10.CA of the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations, no petition for a Special Exception shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless such petition is in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Regulations.

Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Commission of the City of Danbury does hereby deny the application by Artel Engineering for a Dunkin Donuts, SE 644, to be located at the comer of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue (Assessor's Lot # JI2221) having found that the application as submitted does not meet the additional requirements for the granting of a Special Exception per as Section 1O.C.4 of the Zoning Regulations based on the following reasons:

 1. The proposal is not designed in a manner, which is compatible with the character of the neighborhood:

  A. Based on evidence in the record and on individual experiences of the Planning Commission with the operation of similar facilities as proposed, the intensity of the use is not compatible with the existing neighborhood from which primary access to the site is proposed.
  B. There are no reasonable requirements that could be imposed that would render the proposed use compatible with the residential neighborhood.

 2. The proposal will create conditions adversely affecting traffic safety and will cause undue traffic congestion:

  A. Pursuant to • 10.D.8.a. of the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations, 'all proposed uses for which a site plan is required shall provide for ingress and egress to the site which does not adversely impact the normal flow of traffic or the normal safe conditions of the roadways'. The Planning Commission has determined, based on evidence in the record and the personal experiences of the Planning Commission, that the proposed roadway improvements to Osborne Street and Springside Avenue may not adequately accommodate the increase in the volume of traffic without a significant decline in traffic safety.
  B. Pursuant to • 10.D.8.b. of the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations, '....may require such reasonable improvements as may be necessary to accommodate traffic increases caused by the proposed development to maintain existing levels of service and traffic safety. Volumes will increase sufficiently to change the character of the neighborhood and the new turning movements cannot, in the Planning Commission's judgment, be accommodated into the existing traffic flows so as not to cause conditions that are unsafe.

   i. According.. to the Traffic Study submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer, the proposed use expects approximately 400 vehicle trips during morning peak, of which 240 vehicles trips already exist on Osborne Street and 160 trips will be new to the area. The Traffic dictates a substantial increase in the traffic movements of the Springside Avenue westbound left and right turn lanes. According to Figures 3 and 6 of the Traffic Study, during the morning peak hour, an increase from 10 vehicular trips to 90 trips for the left turn lane is expected and an increase from 10 vehicular trips to 110 trips for the right turn lane is expected. Furthermore, the Traffic Study indicates a significant increase in the traffic movements of both of the Osborne Street northbound and southbound turn movements onto Springside Avenue. According to Figures 3 and 6 of the Traffic Study, during morning peak hour, an increase from 15 to 110 trips for the northbound right turn and an increase from 5 to 90 trips for southbound left turn is expected.

   ii. Vehic1es exiting Dunkin Donuts traveling westbound to Osborne Street must exit at an un-signalized T -intersection. Due to existing and proposed traffic volumes on Osborne Street, left turn movements exiting the site into southbound traffic will prove to be difficult for motorists. Additionally, vehicles attempting a left turn onto Osborne Street will be confronted with three opposing traffic patterns at this intersection; (1) vehicles traveling northbound on Osborne Street (2) vehicles traveling southbound on Osborne Street turning left on to Springside Avenue and (3) vehicles traveling southbound on Osborne Street utilizing the proposed bypass lane.

  C. The Planning Commission, based on testimony given by the neighbors and the Commission's personal knowledge of the traffic volumes and movements on Osborne Street and the immediate area, finds that with the substantial increase in new traffic movements at this intersection, the proposed roadway improvements along Osborne Street and Springside Avenue will not result in safe traffic movements for the reasons outlined in #2 above.

 3. The use will jeopardize public health and safety.

  A. Based on the experience of the Planning Commission with similar facilities and existing pedestrian flows in the neighborhood that is supported by testimony in the record, pedestrian traffic in the area is likely to increase and coupled with the increase in volume and conflicting traffic movements may create unsafe pedestrian conditions that may jeopardize public health and safety.

 4. Given the conditions and constraints existing on Osborne Street and Springside Avenue peculiar to this site and the proposed use, the Planning Commission can find no reasonable improvements that will ensure full compliance with the provisions of Section lO.C.4.a.

cc: Sean Hearty, Zoning Enforcement Officer
George Gleason, Permit Center
Farid Khouri, Engineering Department
Abdul Mohammed, Traffic Engineer
Chief Alan Baker, City of Danbury Police Department
Barry Rickert, Fire Marshal
Fran Lollie, Highway Department
Leo Null, Building Department
Robin Edwards, Corporation Counsel

Here's a copy of the first denial from the planning department when Batista first tried to sidestep the planning commission decision.

SP 06-26 Dunkin Donuts Springside Avenue and Osborne Street

CITY OF DANBURY
155 DEER HILL AVENUE
DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810

PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
(203) 797-4525
(203) 797-4586 (FAX)

February 27,2007

Dainius Virbickas
Artel Engineering
304 Federal Road
Brookfield, CT 06804

Re: Dunkin' Donuts, Springside Avenue and Osborne Street-SP 06-26 (Assessor's Lot # J12221)

Dear Mr. Virbickas:

The City of Danbury Department of Planning and Zoning received an Application for Site Plan Approval on December 26, 2006 to construct a Dunkin' Donuts facility with a drive-through window to be located at the northeast comer of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue. The lot area is approximately 22,409 sq. ft. and the property is zoned CG-20. Additional site improvements include an exterior order board, drive-through lane and pick-up window, parking lot, landscaping, drainage system, and roadway improvements.

The following maps and documents were submitted for review.

 1. Maps under the general title "Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street, City of Danbury, Fairfield County, Connecticut", prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC:
  A. Subtitled 'Cover Sheet', dated 11128/06;
  B. Subtitled 'Site Plan', dated 11/28/06;
  C. Subtitled 'Grading and Utility Plan', dated 11128/06;
  D. Subtitled 'Landscape and Lighting Plan', dated 11/28/06;
  E. Subtitled 'Sediment & Erosion Control Plan', dated 11128/06;
  F. Subtitled 'Site Details 1', dated 11/28/06;
  G. Subtitled 'Site Details II', dated 11/28/06;
  H. Subtitled 'Existing Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05 and
  I. Subtitled 'Proposed Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05.

 2. Survey titled "Improvement Location Survey, Showing Property of Bruce J. Daab, property situated at Osborne Street and Springside Avenue", prepared by Surveying Associates, P.c., dated November 18,2005.
 3. Site Engineering Report, Prepared for Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street and Springs ide A venue, Danbury, Connecticut, Prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC, dated November 2006.

The Application states that the total square footage of the proposed building is 896 square feet generating 495 average daily trips per day, plus a 500 square foot freezer which, you maintain, should be considered as storage generating 2.5 trips per day.

However, average daily trips generated by a fast food restaurant is given as 553 trips per day per 1,000 gross square feet (see ~ 10.D.8.b.(2)). The Zoning Regulations define gross floor area as

the sum of the areas of the several floors of a building, as measured from the interior faces of exterior walls, including all areas used for human occupancy, elevator shafts and stairwells at each story, interior balconies, and mezzanines, but excluding open porches or outside balconies, and any floor space intended or designed for the parking of motor vehicles or for heating and ventilating equipment. [see • 2.B.]

Based on said definition, the freezer must be included in the total gross floor area of the proposed use and used for calculating average daily trips at the rate proscribed for fast food restaurants. Storage is not excluded in the definition of "gross floor area" nor can it be calculated at a separate rate.

Consequently, the total trip generation for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts facility is based on a 1,396 square foot building (896 sq. ft. plus 500 sq. ft.). The total trip generation is 772 trips per day. The Zoning Regulations require that all proposed uses generating over 500 trips per day are designated as special exceptions [~3.E.2.] and subject to all requirements thereof, including review and action by the Planning Commission, not the Department alone.

As a result of these findings, the site plan application for said use located at the corner of Springside Avenue and Osborne Street (Assessor's Lot # Jl2221) is denied. It may be submitted to the Planning Commission for special exception/site plan review and action.

Sincerely,
JennIfer L. Emminger, AICP
Associate Planner

cc: Robin Edwards, Assistant Corporation Counsel
Sean Hearty, Zoning Enforcement Officer
George Gleason, Permit Center
Farid Khouri, Engineering Department
Abdul Mohammed, Traffic Engineer
Alan Baker, Chief, Danbury Police Dept.
Barry Rickert, Fire Marshal
Leo Null, Building Department
Fran Louie, Highway Department

Now, remember, Batista's solution to the FIRST LETTER OF DENIAL was to REMOVE THE REFRIGERATOR. Trust me, I'll bet the house that he'll find a way to get the refrigerator placed in the business AFTER the place is finally built.

In short, this is a yet another story of a greedy developer who cares less about the quality of life in Danbury and more about his profits. Not his quote in Driscoll's article:

"I don't know what the neighbors have against doughnuts. They think we're selling prostitution or something. Doughnuts and coffee. What do they want over there, a church? I paid my money for a piece of land. It is allowed. It's as simple as that," Batista said.

Batista knows that this is not the case. It's NOT about an objection to donuts, it's about a man who has the nerve to build a business in an area that will have adverse effect to the quality of life for the residents who live in that area (including the children who walk down Springside, onto and across Osborne Street, towards Broadview School).

I'm in the process of locating the video footage from the planning commission meetings where you can hear for yourself the public outcry in opposition to the proposal and the irrational remarks from Batista's attorney Neil Marcus in regards to the traffic concerns (including the comment regarding the impact the business will have on the firehouse located one house away).