Although they are told for several campaign cycles that the property in the photo above is PUBLIC PROPERTY (corner of Barnum Rd. and Pembroke Road 37) and that placing campaign signs on public property is strictly prohibited, Danbury Republicans such as City Councilwoman Colleen Stanley (come on Colleen, you're better than this), 2nd ward Councilmen Mike Halas and Charlie (I'm planning on moving out of the second ward the day after the election) Trombetta continue to disregard city law for their own selfish political purposes.
...oh, and in case the Republicans claim that they can place the signs there because Mike Halas has a lease agreement with the city, HERE'S A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT...which is NOT a LEASE agreement but rather a LICENSE agreement signed between Corporation Counsel, Mayor Boughton and Mike Halas that CLEARLY states that the CITY OF DANBURY owns the land and that Halas is ONLY TO beautify the property!
I like Halas' comment in his letter to the council when he requested the agreement (second page in the document)
This area would continuously be maintained by us and would meet any special regulations and guidelines the city of Danbury may have.
Well, it seems that the law doesn't apply to those who kiss the dictator of Danbury's the mayor's ring.
...more later.
UPDATE: Apparently people in the neighborhood are quite upset over Halas' ignoring city law. I wouldn't recommend that you go down and rip the signs apart or confront Halas at his farm as things could escalate into a physical confrontation.
Instead be cool and forward your anger towards The Office of Neighborhood Services (UNIT) at 203.796.8026. Talk to Coordinator Shawn Stillman and demand that he remove the signs TODAY! If needed, forward Stillman the link to this post which includes the copy of the license agreement approved by the mayor and Corporation Counsel.
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.
