If you ever travel through Bethel, then you know that the conditions of the roads are am embarrassment. During the 2009 campaign, the issue of road repair was one of the top concerns on the minds of voters and in my interview with First Selectman-Elect Matt Knickerboker on election night of that year, the Democrat promised that road repair would be one of his top priorities.
Fast forward to November 2010 and the issue of road repair is still being debated in the town with an added twist...accusations of obstruction and dirty politics are being thrown back and forth (something that's not new to Bethel).
While members of the public are accusing critics of Knickerbocker on the board of finance (BOF) of using delay tactics and scoring political points at the risk of the public's safety, members of the board of finance reject that notion and state that they're concerned with the price of the bond package for the road project (8.5 million over 4 years).
While I plan to do more posts on the road repair proposal, and my take on the controversy surrounding the situation, the purpose of this post is to give those who couldn't attend the meeting, an opportunity to see what actually transpired Tuesday night. Although I tried to stream the meeting live, portions of the meeting didn't air due to the lack of 3G signal in the building.
Here's the video from the meeting. You can judge for yourself whether or not members of the BOF are playing politics with the safety of the residents of Bethel.
Public participation:
Board of Finance debate on the road repair proposal:
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.
