The city agreed to look for a new option for the controversial library drop boxes that have been making the rounds outside the Danbury Public Library.
The idea of looking for a new option arose Tuesday during a one-hour ad hoc committee meeting of the City Council.
[...]
The most recent problem arose this summer, because for the last 11 years, the boxes were located on a traffic island one street crossing distant from the library plaza. A city worker collected the books twice a day for the last 11 year, but he is now on long-term disability leave, and he can't collect the books.
Library workers have objected to the task for three reasons. They have to push a cart loaded with two plastic boxes 50 yards from the library, cross a busy street, load the plastic boxes with the books people dropped off, then push the cart, plastic boxes and books back across the busy intersection and then 50 yards back to the library.
To solve that problem, the city moved the boxes to the parking lot behind the library, and that solution appeared to please the library workers, although it led to loud objections from patrons. Now the patrons have to get out of their cars.
[...]
Christine Rotello of Danbury, said there are three types of library patrons very seriously inconvenienced by moving the boxes off the traffic island, and those people have rights.
"You have your parents with children," she said, and drew a graphic picture with words of a mother having to unstrap her children, grab her pocketbook, grab the books, and herd the children across traffic and the plaza to reach the drop box. She said similar problems arise for the elderly and for people with handicaps.
"Why not put them right back where they were before," Christine Rotello asked.
The removal of the drop boxes from their former location is unacceptable plan and simple. Although our mayor talks about looking for a solution to the matter, there is really only one sensible solution...BUT THE BOXES BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION and tell the library staff that they have an additional responsibility.
Any other "option" is laughable and unrealistic and Boughton knows it.
Although no decision arose from the meeting, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said he would visit the library Wednesday with Public Works Director Antonio Idarolla to look for a possible solution behind the library that would create a way for people to drive up to a drop box and not climb out of their car.
"I'm not promising anything. I'll take a look at it," Boughton said.
Among the longer-term options is the city's plan to take the Union Savings Bank behind the library and use its drive-up window area as a daytime drop off and pick up area. That is possibly three years off.
A second long-term option, Boughton said, is during the renovations to the former Immanuel Lutheran School next to the library, perhaps the city could include drop off boxes somewhere in the parking lot. It is close to the library, and it doesn't involve crossing any streets with carts loaded with books.
As the article outlines, these options are VERY LONG TERM and unnecessary since there was no problem with the boxes at the old location...the problem stemmed from a lack of funding to have ONE PERSON go out and empty the boxes.
In the end, the problem with the boxes came down to economics. With ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES at the library, you would think they could find ONE person who would have no problem emptying the boxes. Paying someone to do this small job would cost peanuts.
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.
