A judge ordered city officials to turn over all communication between Mayor Mark Boughton, the city's planning commission and the Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority regarding local businessman Joseph Putnam's application for a garbage transfer station on Plumtrees Road.
Putnam's application -- which was met with fierce opposition from neighbors living in condos and townhouses in the Plumtrees Road area -- was rejected by the Danbury Planning Commission on April 8, 2008.
Putnam appealed the decision to Danbury Superior Court a month later.
Putnam's attorney, Gregory Cava of New Milford, claims that Putnam's application never had a chance in front of the planning commission because the city was already making plans to take over the White Street transfer station from James Galante, who is now serving a prison sentence for racketeering.
In court papers, Cava claims Boughton wanted Putnam's application rejected because the city wants to be the only entity running a transfer station in Danbury.
[...]
In a document dated Feb. 18, Judge Mary E. Sommer -- responding to a discovery request from Cava -- ordered the city to produce:
* All communication between the city and HRRA regarding Putnam's application.
* All communication between the planning commission and Putnam.
* All communication regarding the removal of "transfer station" from certain zones in the city, including any communication between Boughton and the planning commission on the subject or between Boughton and HRRA.
This part of the request from Putnam's lawyers should be interesting
Cava also claims city government used the city's emergency notification system to tell residents about a public hearing in front of the planning commission regarding Putnam's application. The goal was to build opposition to the application, Cava said in court papers, not to simply notify residents about the meeting, as the city claimed.
The judge ordered the city to reveal any e-mails or memos regarding the use of the notification system as it pertained to Putnam's application -- and a list of every resident contacted by the city.
Boughton has had a habit of blurring the lines when it comes to his use of the emergency notification system. His most notable stunt was when he used to system to conduct a "poll" of the ICE ACCESS program back in Faburary 2008.
Also, this quote from the last honest man in Danbury caught my eye...
Boughton said the city did not launch a plan to take over Galante's transfer station until long after the planning commission rejected Putnam's application.
While this could be technically right, I can't (and won't) believe for a second that Boughton didn't have his eyes on the White Street transfer station since Galante was all but toast at the time when the Putnam proposal was in front of the commssion.
Now, all that being said, in my opinion, the planing commission had several reasons to axe Putnam's proposal which had nothing to do with Boughton. As someone who attended (and videotaped) most, if not all, of the planning commission meetings, I could tell you that there was FIERCE opposition from residents who would be directly effected by Putnam's station. In any case, it would be interesting to see if the mayor did anything wrong.
NOTE: You can read my footage from the transfer station...it's listed under the "DEVELOPMENT MADNESS" tab in the left column under the "Elmer's Diner Disaster."
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.
