It looks like there has been another shotgun wedding at City Hall. The City Council had to hurry up and agree to let Union Savings Bank buy the old police station. Why the hurry? It's because Mark Boughton put the revenue from the sale of the building in the city's (May 3, 2010) operating budget. The closing must take place before June 30, 2011.
He used to complain about his Democratic colleagues in the General Assembly using one-shot revenues to fill holes in the state budget.
Now he is doing the same thing.
Listen Mark, if you fill a hole in your operating budget with temporary dough, the hole magically reappears the next year and every year thereafter. Then you have a real problem. You have to lay people off, throw collective bargaining out the window or sell some more assets.
Maybe the mayor will decide to sell off the Danbury municipal airport or even picturesque Tarrywile Mansion to balance the next city budget.
Residents should be up in arms about these fiscal gimmicks, but with such a large majority on the city council, Mark Boughton has his 15 rubber stamps and no opposing views are heard.
It's great to keep taxes low for property owners in Danbury. I just hope everyone will enjoy the lower quality of life that comes with lower taxes, lower home prices and lower quality in our public schools.
Lynn Taborsak, Democratic Town Committee chairwoman
Food for thought as we witness Boughton ONCE AGAIN dip into the city's fund balance to erase YET ANOTHER failed attempt to use a one time gimmick (selling of city owned land) to balance his out of whack budget.
The city asked for a 10 percent deposit by April 1 on the sale of 13 acres for $3 million. When it didn't arrive, the city canceled that deal for non-performance, and put the property out to bid Wednesday with an April 25 deadline for bids.
"I don't know if relief is the actual word," said City Council President Joe Cavo. "It lets us out of that deal. It kind of puts that chapter behind us."
Here's what Boughton and the "relieved" Council President had to say about the land deal just a couple of weeks ago when some rather disturbing legal information regarding the developer surfaced.
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said the fact a person was sued does not exclude that person from doing business with the city, and he said many developers have been sued by their partners.
"All of these guys get dragged into court all the time. If the litmus test was never being sued, we couldn't do business with anyone," Boughton said.
[...]
"I don't feel the city is in danger of anything. I have the attorneys available to me to do what they have to do to protect the city's best interests," said City Council Joe Cavo.
Cavo said this is not a situation where the city stands to lose anything. It is selling 13 acres of land. It will be paid for the land and that is that. If the developer fails or doesn't build what he proposed, that's on the developer.
The city didn't stand to lose anything? Does the name Errichetti come to mind?
Boughton and the Republicans on the Council have egg of their faces and they are directly to blame for this fiasco due to their ill-advised plan to use a gimmick (selling of city owned land) to balance the budget, which will most likely result in the mayor ONCE AGAIN reaching into the fund balance in order to erase YET ANOTHER budget deficit before the end of the fiscal year (June 30).
I know, I know, it's been a while since I've posted something here. Rest assured I'm still very active in Danbury matters...just now it's more behind the scenes as I'm a bit overwhelemed with digging through archives and doing MAJOR research on several hot button issues in the city.
Needless to say that between my research and taking care of things at home that my time is somewhat limited. I'll be back to full speed here real soon...trust me, I've have lots of goodies to share.
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.
