The city's fire training school is one step closer to becoming a regional facility.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has signed legislation allowing state officials to designate the local fire training school on Plumtrees Road as a regional facility. But first, the proposal must be vetted locally.
A public hearing on the proposal would have to be held before the designation could be made -- a new process put into place by the Legislature this year.
[...]
Mayor Mark Boughton said Monday that while he is not opposed to the designation, he wants to hear more details about how the proposal would change the operations of the school.
"I want to understand what the implications are of hosting this kind of facility, particularly the cost associated with it and if there are any concerns residents who live near the school might have," he said.
Lets go through the HatCityBLOG archives to June 7 2011:
Currently at the General Assembly, there's a bill on the agenda that will establish a regional fire school in Danbury (HB 5489, LCO 8438). This proposal has strong bi-partisan support from state lawmakers including the Greater Danbury delegation and should be a no-brainer for passage before the end of the legislative session (which ends tomorrow at midnight).
At least the bill was a no-brainer until Mike McLachlan got involved...
Here's the portion of the proposal that our state senator disagrees with (highlighted in bold)...
Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2011) (a) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in consultation with the Commission on Fire Prevention and Control and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve the establishment of any regional fire school. Any municipality seeking to establish a regional fire school shall hold a public hearing in the municipality where the regional fire school is proposed to be established and, after the public hearing, submit an application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after such application, the commissioner, in consultation with the commission and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve or deny the application.
In layman's terms, if a municipality seeks to have a regional fire school, they MUST hold a public hearing where the residents who are effected by the school can have a chance to offer their input about the matter.
Sounds reasonable right? Well, not for McLachlan...
Our incompetent state senator wants to add the following outrageous amendment to the bill.
"Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2011) (a) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in consultation with the Commission on Fire Prevention and Control and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve the establishment of any regional fire school. Any municipality seeking to establish a regional fire school shall submit an application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after such application, the commissioner, in consultation with the commission and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve or deny the application."
In other words, McLachlan doesn't want the public to have any input into the matter.
Now, do you think McLachlan (Boughton's FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF) came up with this idea to propose an amendment that would squash the public hearing on the facility in DANBURY on his own?
Mark Boughton=the most dishonest mayor in the history of Danbury.
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.
