There are MANY reasons why residents should be alarmed over the mayor appointing Mike Halas for Common Council which I will be explaining over the next series of posts.
As a primer, lets go back in time take a look at the series of complaints lodged at Halas from people at City Hall.
The following footage was shot at a Zoning Commission meeting back on May 13 2008. At issue was a petition from Halas to amend section 4.A.5.f.(9) of the Zoning Regulations so that he could use a parcel of property classified as a RA-40 (which basically means residential property) for his business.
While I'll explain in great detail what led to Halas' requesting this proposal from the Zoning Commission, for now, it's important to understand one of the major complaints lodged against Boughton's pick for the Jim Johnson's 2nd ward vacant seat: Halas' bully-like and juvenile tactics against those who oppose him.
Watch and listen as a fellow Republican severely chastises Halas and his supporters for their disgusting actions during the meeting...as well as for what happened AFTER the meeting outside City Hall in the parking lot...I'll explain later but trust me, it's not good.
HatCityBLOG video archives: May 13 2008.
And this comment about Halas is from a FELLOW Republican!
...is this the type of person you want as your 2nd ward representative on the Common Council?
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.
