Bethel voters will finally get to voice their opinion on the town's proposed $2 million Road Renewal Plan next Tuesday, Dec. 7.
The referendum was approved Monday night at a special town meeting held at the Bethel High School auditorium. The original $8.5 million, multi-year Road Renewal Plan was first proposed by First Selectman Matthew Knickerbocker back in June, and has since been changed to only bond $2 million, per concern of the Board of Finance.
After the discussion period, those present officially voted to adjourn the meeting with the plan going to referendum (and its date and time), which only had a couple dissenters.
Knickerbocker said though his original plan didn't make it to referendum, he was happy of the meeting's outcome and that he is "confident that it will pass."
"I strongly think the $8.5 million was better for the town; it would have given our residents assurance that they wouldn't have to go back again and again through this process," Knickerbocker said. "...I want to assure the residents of Bethel that I am going for the rest of the package for the next budget cycle."
The vote will be held next Tuesday, Dec. 7 from 6 a.m.-8 p.m. at the usual town polling places: the Clifford J. Municipal Center, the Frank A. Berry School and the Stony Hill Fire Station. Absentee ballots will be available at the Town Clerk's Office starting Tuesday, Nov. 30 till Monday, Dec. 6. The office is open on weekdays from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Besides the rants from the usual suspects, the vote went as expected and the residents of Bethel will finally have their say on the matter.
UPDATE: My GOD! Talk about lack of quality reporting. If you want to know why journalists in the print media are jumping ship and joining the AOL-Patch service, this laughable News-Times blurb on last night's vote in Bethel should explain things.
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.