Today in Danbury, voters will decide if the city will get a new police station, a parking garage and an updated sewer plant. If anyone has driven past the police station on Main Street, it's obvious that the station is too small to meet the needs of the city (the police cars parked on the lawn tells the story).
"Danbury's (police) headquarters is old, out-dated and worn out," said Chief Alan Baker. "It was built in 1971 for 75 officers and right now our strength is 152."
There is very little parking space, so the lawns at the department double as parking lots.
Baker said the old department was built before each desk had a computer. It was built before much of the modern forensic equipment was created, and its heating, ventilation and air condition equipment is faulty.
"We have six holding cells, and we'll frequently have 11 or 12 people in lock-up after the weekend," Baker said.
The city's police officers have been giving public tours of their building during the last month to show people their working conditions.
The police portion of the bond is $33.8 million. The city's voters have already committed $2.7 million to this project, and the city is in the process of buying the land needed for a new headquarters on Main Street near East Franklin Street.
At the end of my post, I wrote the following...
...it's up to you to do your duty as citizens of Danbury and vote.
Now, lets take a look at the vote count for the 48 MILLION DOLLAR BOND PACKAGE*.
Voters voted in favor of the bond package yesterday. Here are the results.
New police headquarters 1,263 to 335.
New parking garage 1,065 to 500.
Upgrades to sewer plant 1,235 to 322.
Now, lets do the math...
1263 (in favor) + 335 (against) = 1598 total residents voting
I would HARDLY call a turnout of 1598 residents in a city where the population is over 70,000 OVERWHELMING SUPPORT for the police station. In fact, I would call it a disgrace that 1598 people are allowed to make a 48 million dollar decision which will effect the entire population for years to come.
Now, I can hear the last honest man in Danbury now saying that the embarrassingly low turnout was due to the vote not taking place during a municipal, state, or federal election. Well, lets just kill that excuse real quick by looking back at another vote that happened in 2006, received MUCH LESS PUBLICITY, and only involved one political party.
From March 10th 2006, I give you totals of the second ward Democratic town committee feud:
Here's the final count (in decending order):
Michael Seri 189 Leadership 2006 Eileen Coladarci 187 United Danbury Democrats Eugene McNamara 186 United Danbury Democrats Helena Abrantes 180 United Danbury Democrats Bernard Gallo 176 United Danbury Democrats Chris Cerda 158 Leadship 2006 Paul McAllister 158 Leadership 2006 Susan Ward 142 Leadership 2006
When you add up THOSE numbers, the total number of people who voted in the SECOND WARD comes to 1376...202 votes less than the CITYWIDE vote on the police station that took place a few months later!
Now don't get me wrong, as I stated back in '06, I think the building of the police station was long overdue as I actively supported the project on this site. What I have a SERIOUS problem with is when a mayor misleads the public with statements that sound good but are not entirely accurate...and when the media just goes along for the ride without holding Boughton accountable for his words.
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.
