In advance of tonight's Zoning Commission public hearing on the homeless shelter proposal at the Super 8 hotel on Lake Ave. Extension, Danbury Police Chief Patrick Ridenhour wrote a memorandum to Mayor Joe Cavo in which he reports that the facility has not led to an increase in crime in the neighborhood.
In short, based solely on incidents reported to us, it does not appear that the shelter has had any significant impact on crime or calls for police service in the area at this time.
This is the second time Chief Ridenhour has placed his observation into the public record and counters the narrative presented by residents opposed to the proposal to make the shelter a permanent structure.
Commission member Perry Salvagne IV wasn’t sold on the argument. Hotels may contribute more to the city, whereas a shelter could become a “burden” on services, he said.
“The people you’re attracting with a hotel are here to do business, maybe participate in tourism, visit family, etc,” said Salvagne, who ultimately voted in favor of the plan. “I would wonder whether people coming to use this as a shelter use might contribute to the costs of our services, whether that’s police, ambulance, the various other services that are offered in the city for those in need.”
That’s a concern others in the community have had. The police chief has said the department has not seen an increase in calls or issues at the Super 8 since individuals were moved there, compared to the old shelters.
Chief Ridenhour's statement also runs counter to the narrative presneted to the public by lawmakers going as far back as last November when State Rep. Ken Gucker made the following comments at the monthly meeting of the Danbury Democratic Town Committee.
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.
