Rotello said the new ordinance cost the city money, because people now pay $100 for the parade permit, but nothing for the police officers who put up barricades and stop cars from crossing the intersections as people walk by.
[...]
Boughton disagreed. He said for big events, where police are required, the organizers are charged a fee to offset the police costs. He said the old law was harder to enforce. With this one, everybody gets charged the $100.
The mayor claims that the ordinance does not cost the city money as organizers "are charged a fee to offset the police costs."
Would you be shocked to learn that a year after the ordinance went into effect, Boughton was singing a different tune...
Watch and learn.
Summer 2008:
BOUGHTON: …the bad news is we probably run up about 150,000 in police charges for all the parades and things that go on in the city…those numbers, they escalate quickly, so that's been a problem….there are other questions about the amount of people, and I think one of the things that we'll look is for recommendations from the chief [Al Baker] is "is this working, are you turning people down", I don't we ever turn someone down but the good news is that people have been really good about coming in and getting a permit so we've been able to organize…I'll talk to the committee chair and if there is a burning issue, I sure we can look into that...
So on one hand, one year after the ordinance went into effect, Boughton claimed that the new ordinance cost the city a whopping 150,000 dollars in police charges. On the other hand, in response to criticism, Boughton disagreed that the ordinance cost the city money and that costs were passed down to the organizers for big events (although the ability for the city to pick and choose which organizers were to be charge for police assistance was NEVER part of the ordinance).
You can't make this up folks!
It's getting to the point where I'm having trouble keeping track of Boughton's misleading statements. The questions remains...when will the media start holding this mayor accountable for the years of contradicting statements he's made on this issue as well as other matters.
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.
