What Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell thought would be her last Bond Commission meeting didn’t go as planned, so she picked up the pieces and tried again Wednesday to borrow about $20 million for a number of capital improvements in cities and towns across the state.
The two Republican lawmakers on the 10-member Bond Commission didn’t make it easy for her. Rep. Vincent Candelora of North Branford voted against all nine agenda items and Sen. Andrew Roraback of Goshen voted against seven of the nine items.
When it comes to the Mayor Boughton and his handling of the city budget, this bond was rather important. Democratic Town Committee chairwoman Lynn Taborsak explain the matter in her News-Times letter to the editor.
It looks like there has been another shotgun wedding at City Hall. The City Council had to hurry up and agree to let Union Savings Bank buy the old police station.
Why the hurry? It's because Mark Boughton put the revenue from the sale of the building in the city's (May 3, 2010) operating budget. The closing must take place before June 30, 2011.
He used to complain about his Democratic colleagues in the General Assembly using one-shot revenues to fill holes in the state budget.
Now he is doing the same thing.
How does this relate to the upcoming budget...
Listen Mark, if you fill a hole in your operating budget with temporary dough, the hole magically reappears the next year and every year thereafter. Then you have a real problem.
You have to lay people off, throw collective bargaining out the window or sell some more assets.
He said for Danbury, that means there are no sacred cows in the budget
"Everything is on the table. You'll see layoffs," Boughton said.
Imagine of this bond wasn't approved, placing the city's deal with Union Savings into jeopardy. Remember, this deal is VERY important because Boughton has already spent this money in the current budget.
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.
