In a continuation of Danbury Democrats’ flip-flop on their long and well-documented history of deep opposition towards tax giveaways for residential developers, here’s another oldie but goodie from the HatCityBLOG archives.
When the concept of tax breaks to BRT for residential development was first proposed, former Mayor Gene Enriquez was one of the plan's most fierce and vocal critics.
Here’s footage of Eriquez passionately detailing why tax giveaways to BRT are disastrous for taxpayers; the following commentary was the backbone of the local Democrats’ opposition towards the Boughton administration's downtown revitalization efforts.
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.