The Richter Park Authority hasn't received city funding since 1985, but that doesn't absolve the group from largely ignoring Richter House all these years.
I fully understand Richter House doesn't generate revenue like the Richter Park golf course. But it's an inseparable part of the Richter legacy, one that deserves to be treated so much better.
Richter House overlooked the vistas on the city's west side long before any golfer swung a driver there. The farmhouse was donated to the city in 1968 by the late Irene Richter in memory of her husband, Stanley.
Richter House was supposed to be taken care of by the authority, not ignored until it deteriorated into a $500,000 repair bill.
Consider: Chapter 13A of the city's code of ordinances relates to parks and recreation, including the Stanley Lasker Richter Memorial Park Authority. Article II of the chapter deals with the creation and powers of the Richter Park Authority.
Among other points, Sec. 13A-11 reads, "Such authority shall have the following powers: To administer, operate and maintain said Stanley Lasker Richter Memorial Park and any adjacent land owned by the city which is made part of the park."
The key word here is "maintain," even if repairs are done a little bit at a time.
Shame on the Richter Park Authority and the city of Danbury for neglecting the Richter house and allowing it to deteriorate after all these years. Honor the promise made to the Richter family and SAVE THE HOUSE!
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.
