Have you ever heard of the old saying "the devil is in the details"? Well, if the answer is "yes" then you should pause and NOT form an opinion one way or the other regarding the city taking ownership of the transfer station.

Simply put, there are WAY too many unanswered questions surrounding this very complex attempt by the city to acquire the rights to the property and without the information needed to form an opinion one way or the other, by default, this entire proposal should neutral ruling.

Whether it's what we were told regarding the parade ordinance, the volleyball ordinance, the whole "casino" fiasco, denial of funding of the Hispanic Center, "bundled campaign contributions from James Galante, sex offender ordinance, the BRT tax giveaway, or the infamous 287g partnership as well as the Danbury 11 case, history has proven that when it comes to ANYTHING politicians say, you better double check and make sure you're not being sold a bag of goods.

As I state on this site on numerous occasions, transparency is the only method in which one can verify a politicians' claim. In the case of the Transfer Station, the question (at this point) shouldn't be whether or not this is a good thing but rather do you have enough information to form a educated opinion. Based on looking at all the information that is available on the city's website, the answer to that question would have to be NO.

Let me explain.

The mayor's first public comment about the Transfer Station occurred at his State of the City address on Dec 19 2008 at which time he announced that he was holding a special common council meeting on Dec 22 (he actually gave out announcements of the meeting to members of the council AT the State of the City address). Although fulfilling the state statue requirements of calling a meeting, the problem with this situation was that the public was completely in the dark in terms of details of the items of the agenda of the special meeting.

Here's a look at calendar on the city's website for that day (Dec 22 2008) and the three items on the agenda:

1 – RESOLUTION – Resolution of Intent,
2 – ORDINANCE – Danbury Solid Waste Authority, and
3 – COMMUNICATION – Request for Funds – Legal Fees.

There is another item on the agenda but it involves information that is withheld from the public...but that's not the problem. This issue lies in the fact that the public is completely in the dark in terms of the details of each item on the agenda because our lovely city clerk failed to provide the public with the documentation that went with each item on the city's website.

Maybe she's too busy performing weddings during city hall business hours...but back to the point.

Usually the procedure on the city's website is that any item on the Common Council agenda is accompanied with documentation related to that particular item. In this case, nothing was provided to the public...in fact, I took it upon myself to get the information myself and make it available to the public on this site. As I stated last month, how can anyone in their right mind sign onto a proposal without knowing any of the details...especially something as complex as this situation.

Do you honestly think a couple of News-Times articles is going to tell you all you need to know about what the city is doing? Really?

Back in December, after the Common Council Special Session, a interviewed Minority Leader Tom Saadi and asked him about this situation and this is what he had to say...



Now, to Saadi's credit, he was not aware that the information regarding the items on the December's agenda was STILL NOT AVAILABLE on the city's website.


...and that brings us to last night's public hearing on the creation of the Danbury Solid Waste and Recycling Authority. Take a look at this snapshot of the agenda on the city's website.



See something missing? Here's a hint, it has something to do with documentation. Once again, the city clerk has not provided for the public any documentation relating to the items on the agenda.

I took the liberty of grabbing the documentation so you can read it for yourself.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD



In closing, I think this is very simple. It's not whether taking over the transfer station is a good idea or not, it's about the city providing ALL THE DOCUMENTATIONS to the public so that WE THE TAXPAYERS can form a well-rounded/educated decision. Take every single quote you've read in the press about this acquisition with a grain of salt until you have enough information to form YOUR OWN OPINION. When it comes to this situation, the city is providing more quotes to the public than the facts...which is a disservice to us all.