In a continuation of Danbury Democrats’ flip-flop on their long and well-documented history of opposing tax giveaways for residential developers, here’s yet another oldie but goodie from the HatCityBLOG archives.
In 2017, as a co-host of a local access show in the area, I interviewed the then-Danbury Democratic mayoral candidate Al Almeida. I specifically asked him to provide his thoughts and vision for downtown Danbury and the impact tax incentives to BRT for residential development had revitalization efforts on Main Street.
Almedia joined the chorus of Democratic mayoral candidates and town committees during the Boughton administration who profoundly opposed providing tax giveaways for residential developers, while residential homeowners and working families are forced to endure higher property taxes.
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.
