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 yet another oldie but goodie from the HatCityBLOG archives.
Over the last nineteen years, I had the opportunity to interview every Democratic-endorsed candidate for mayor, and my go-to question for each candidate centered on their thoughts on tax breaks for residential developers to spur downtown revitalization efforts.
In the following clip, 2009 Danbury Democratic mayoral candidate Gary Goncalves for his thoughts on the downside of providing tax giveaways for residential developers such as BRT's Brookview Commons building on Crosby Street.
Goncalve's criticism of the BRT deal and disagreement with providing millions of dollars in tax giveaways for residential developers was the cornerstone of Danbury Democrat's opposition towards the Boughton administration's efforts to revitalize Main Street.
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.
