Last Thursday, I attended the long-awaited opening of Sonic Drive-In restaurant located across the street from the Western Connecticut State University's midtown campus on White Street.
It's been at least twelve years since rumors first circulated about the fast food operation's desire to open an establishment in Danbury.
In 2012, the city approved a plan to build a Sonic location at the property on Newtown Road that currently occupies The EDGE fitness center. The tenant at the property at the time (XPect Discounts) filed and won a lawsuit blocking the restaurant's construction, arguing that the placement of the franchise on the property would violate their lease agreement.
Fast forward to today, and the White Street property that once housed food establishments such as Wendy's and Arthur's Treacher's, now has Sonic as their new tenant.
Here's my video recap of Sonic's ribbon-cutting ceremony, as well as my interview with Mayor Dean Esposito where we discussed what the opening means for the economic development efforts on the city's east side.
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.
