Recent support from Danbury Democrats for tax giveaways for residential developers is a far cry from the party's well-established, historical opposition to such policies.
From the HatCityBLOG archives, here's a video clip from March 2006 where then newly elected DDTC chairman Joe DaSilva outlined the party's strong opposition towards providing BRT with a seven-year tax break for their proposed housing projects on Crosby Street (now called Brookview Commons) and Kennedy Ave (now called Kennedy Flats).
It seems that recent support from Danbury Democrats for tax giveaways to residential developers is a far cry from the party's well-established and historical opposition to such policies. In fact, in a 2006 clip from newly elected DDTC chairman Joe DaSilva, he outlined the party's strong opposition towards providing BRT with a seven-year tax break for housing on Crosby Street (now called Brookview Commons) and Kennedy Ave (now called Kennedy Flats).
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.
