The Malloy administration's plan to permanently close two I-84 rest areas in Willington on July 1 – on the way to closing all seven of Connecticut's noncommercial rest areas on interstate highways in the next two years – will be scrapped and they will all stay open, the legislature's transportation committee co-chairman, Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, said Wednesday morning.
Contacted by the Courant about his week-long fight to reverse the plan, Guerrera confirmed Wednesday morning that amended language has been prepared to undo part of a budget-implementation bill passed earlier this week. The language provided for the closing of the two Willington areas, one on each side of I-84, on the eve of a big holiday weekend when drivers take to the highways. The amended language is to be approved today, on the last day of the 2011 legislative session, he said.
But even beyond the technical language, Guerrera said "the administration has assured me that the rest areas all will stay open" – not just the two to be immediately closed in Willington, but also the other five set for closing in the following fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. The other five are: on I-84 in Danbury and Southington; on I-91 in Middletown and Wallingford; and on I-95 in North Stonington.
"I'm just happy to have worked this out with the administration," Guerrera said.
I'm happy that the Malloy administration came to their senses but closing the rest areas was a bad idea from the beginning and hopefully this ill-advised proposal will not be considered in the future.
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.
