HatCityBLOG Flashback Friday moment: The history of Danbury Democrats' opposition to tax giveaways for residential developers edition (take 1)
Friday, February 23, 2024 Time: 9:38 AM
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).
Wait, what? Danbury Democrats support tax giveaways for residential development?!?
Time: 8:51 AM
Former elected Democrats and residents who have been historically critical of tax deferments to residential developers are still expressing deep outrage and disappointment with Mayor Alves and current Democratic City Council leadership's push to provide residential developer BRT yet another multi-year tax giveaway in the face of a historic thirty-million-dollar education budget request.
An ever-growing number of local Democrats, former elected officials, and former politically active residents have expressed their dismay and discomfort with the current state of affairs at City Hall and the local Democratic Party on various unreported topics. As someone keenly aware of the complaints towards the current leadership and who has meticulously documented BRT's controversial past with the city, people have requested that I provide readers with a historical lesson on Danbury Democrats' former decades-long opposition to tax giveaways to residential developers.
I'll dig into the HatCityBLOG archives and provide a LONG and DETAILED flashback on the history of local Democrats' former opposition to tax giveaways to residential developers and show how the new Democratic approach to this topic has added to the ever-growing rift within the party.
Here's a list of the Democrats who voted against the tax giveaway.
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.
