When the Kaidy brothers first subdivided a peach farm off Hospital Avenue in the early 1900s into small lots, their hope was to create a neighborhood of family housing.
"It was supposed to be a nice family community for people with moderate incomes," said Charlotte Barrows, whose uncle and father, George and Kahan Kaidy, subdivided the 58-acre property in the early 1900s.
Barrows said her uncle and father put the deed restrictions in place to protect the area's character. The restrictions allow only single family homes to be built on the properties.
[...]
BRT, a development firm in Danbury, is in the process of building three townhouses each on four separate lots on Hospital Avenue.
John Noone, who lives across the street from the new development that's been dubbed Jeffrey Court, said that while he believes the deed restriction is binding and enforceable, the city refused to recognize it.
"The restriction was placed there by the original owners so the area wouldn't get overcrowded," he said. "A lot of the neighbors would like to fight this, but we don't have money to hire a lawyer."
So lets recap:
The section of Hospital Ave where the infamous BRT is building there irresponsible complex is well-known for its traffic concerns
There are DEED RESTRICTIONS on the property that clearly state that multi-family complexes were not to be allowed
Property owners have fought BRT from developing a larger complex on that property when the developer came in front of the planning commission
The Planning Commission denied BRT's previous proposal for that location
BRT took the City of Danbury to court over the Planning Commission ruling and LOST the case (as well as the appeal to the case)
Simply put, the city dropped the ball in this case. Clearly, the land should NEVER be developed and instead of using the open space bond for silly things such as saving a so-called "farm" that looks more like a junk yard or land that will only benefit the Charles Ives Authority, with his "connections" with BRT, Mayor Boughton should had made a deal with one of his biggest campaign contributor Dan Bertram and purchased the land.
This brings back memories of the Cotswald case...except in this case, the neighbors are losing the battle (for now).
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.
