Since I've been requesting my readers to provide photos of any fire hydrant and/or sidewalks that aren't cleaned and poses a safety risk, someone tipped me off to this gem of a situation on the corner of Beaver Brook and Sand Pit Road.
In the photo, note how the business owner on the right cleared the sidewalk, also take note of the crosswalk signal. Since there is a signal across the street (marked in blue), then there should also be a sidewalk across the street.
Here's a better look at the sidewalk across the street (marked in red), as well as the the crossing signal (marked in blue), and the crosswalk (also marked in blue)...all of which are buried in snow...
...and here's a continuation of the sidewalk buried in snow (marked in red) as it wraps around Beaver Brook Road.
Clearly, this business owner is in violation of the city ordinance that pertains to sidewalk snow removal. Now, according to Mayor Boughton:
A sidewalk inspector was out making sure residents cleared hydrants and sidewalks on their property of snow and ice Thursday and Friday, Boughton said.
Residents who failed to clear their property might receive a ticket, he said.
A sidewalk covered in snow or ice poses a potential safety hazard for people trying to walk, the mayor said.
"If you get hurt walking on a sidewalk in front of a house, that's the owner's responsibility," Boughton said. "Not the city's."
Every person owning or occupying any land fronting upon any sidewalk within the city shall, within four (4) hours of daylight immediately following the cessation of any fall of snow, or accumulation of ice thereon, cause the same to be removed, so that travel upon said sidewalk shall not be obstructed, dangerous or inconvenient, and upon failure so to do within the time limit, shall be punished as provided in Section 1-7. After the expiration of the time limit as aforesaid, if such snow and ice shall not have been removed, the superintendent of highways or his designee shall cause the same to be removed at the expense of such owner or occupier, such expense to be recovered from either the owner or occupier in an action brought in the name of the city.
Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or violation, or wherever in such Code or ordinance the doing of an act is required or the failure to do an act is declared to be unlawful, and no specific penalty is provided therefor either by ordinance or statute, the violation of any such provision of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) and as may be amended by state law. Each day's violation of any provision of this Code or of any ordinance shall constitute a separate offense.
So to recap:
The snowstorm from hell occurred on Tuesday.
According to city ordinance 17-7a the business owner in question had "within four (4) hours of daylight immediately following the cessation of any fall of snow, or accumulation of ice thereon, cause the same to be removed, so that travel upon said sidewalk shall not be obstructed, dangerous or inconvenient."
Failure to comply to 17-7a results in punishment provided in section 1-7 that states: "the violation of any such provision of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00)...each day's violation of any provision of this Code or of any ordinance shall constitute a separate offense.
Based on a literal reading of the city's code of ordinances, as of Saturday, this business owner should be fined 750.00 dollars.
And what's the name of this business that's in violation of the city ordinance?
...and who's the owner of Arconti Concrete LLC?
Yup, you guessed it...CITY COUNCILMAN (and FORMER DANBURY POLICE OFFICER) Robert Arconti!
Funny how a councilman who boasts about law and order can get away with breaking the law? Where's the sidewalk inspector when you need him/her?
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.
