In 2011, Lynn Taborsak threw her hat in the race for mayor and became the latest in a long line of Democratic mayoral and city council candidates who vehemently opposed providing tax giveaways for millionaire residential developers while resident property owners in the city are forced to endure ever-increasing property taxes.

Food for thought as residents brace for a historic and fiscally irresponsible thirty-million dollar educational funding increase.

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.

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.

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.

Several Democrats who opposed the tax giveaways have expressed dismay with the current Democratic leadership's willingness to provide BRT the same tax giveaway the party has historically opposed.

In light of the unprecedented thirty-million dollar education budget request, Democrats who have long-opposed giving tax giveaways to BRT have expressed deep frustration and dismay with the new crop of Democrats who voted to reward BRT with the same lucrative tax break that Democrats historically denounced.

PRESS RELEASE FROM Helena Abratnes campaign for Mayor (2007).

Prominent Danbury Democrats are calling for the repeal of the seven-year tax assessment deferral for the BRT property at 30 Crosby Street.

Helena Abrantes, Democratic Candidate for Mayor, said, "Mark Boughton and the Republican controlled Common Council have ignored the opposition of this tax giveaway and the Ad Hoc committee appointed to consider repeal has been delaying any resolution of this issue." Abrantes stated, "I have the signatures of hundreds of Danbury Taxpayers who demand an answer from their elected officials and want a decision from the Republican controlled Ad Hoc Committee so the entire Council can move forward with the repeal."

"This is the FIRST time in the City's history that a tax deferral was offered for any residential development. There is no benefit to the City or its residents that would justify such a windfall to a single corporate real estate condominium developer, especially recognizing BRT went back on its word regarding the marketing of these apartments on Crosby Street," Abrantes concluded.

Tom Saadi, Democratic Council Leader, who opposed these condo tax abatements from the beginning, said, "We are demanding repeal, especially in light of the developer's 'bait and switch' change in use." BRT originally attempted to justify the tax abatement for its Crosby Street project by claiming it would be bring young professionals to downtown and have an overall positive effect on economic development and revenue for the city.

However, this is an unprecedented use of tax deferrals. In contrast, tax deferrals for the recruitment, retention and/or expansion of Cendant Mobility/Cartus, GE Capital, Belimo and MannKind Pharma provide quality jobs and produce a significant economic benefit for the City of Danbury.

Councilwoman Lynn Taborsak stated, "There are no jobs created, no additional businesses started and no benefit that warrants a multi-million dollar giveaway of both tax dollars and reduced hookup fees for sewer and water. Homeowners in my neighborhood on Jackson Drive, Woodbury Drive and Hawley Road had to pay full-freight for their water and sewer hookups. Why couldn't they get a sweetheart deal like BRT?"

Councilman Ben Chianese said, "The original plan for this project was thrown out the window. Now this project has no resemblance to the plan that was approved by the previous Common Council. As a city, we cannot afford these tax giveaways for residential developers. As Democratic officeholders and candidates, we will demand that the Ad Hoc Committee meet to resolve this issue and we will push for repeal."

While the Democrats have long complained about the BRT deal, they said their petition proves the public isn't happy, either. "This is the first time in the city's history that a tax deferral was offered for any residential development," Abrantes said in a prepared statement Tuesday.

"There is no benefit to the city or its residents that would justify such a windfall to a single corporate real estate condominium developer, especially recognizing BRT went back on its word regarding the marketing of these apartments."

The city gave BRT -- a Danbury developer -- a seven-year tax incentive to build a five-story apartment building on the site of a former lumber yard. The deal essentially allows BRT to pay taxes as if the property had never been developed, said Dan Bertram, BRT's executive vice president.

The tax break was given with the impression the apartments would go to young urban professionals -- couples and single people a few years out of college, working white-collar jobs and having disposable income.

Instead, Brookview Commons is being rented by students from Western Connecticut State University.

Democrats are calling the change a "bait and switch" and want the tax break repealed. They said the average Danbury resident doesn't get a tax break and questioned why a developer would.

Furthermore, an ad hoc committee formed to explore the possibility of repealing the tax break is being stifled, the Democrats said. "Mark Boughton and the Republican-controlled Common Council have ignored the opposition to this tax giveaway," said Abrantes, who said BRT "went back on its word" by marketing the apartments to college students.

Tax abatements and downtown development:

First, tax abatements were not necessary and claiming they were is nothing short of insulting the intelligence of Danbury residents. Unnecessary: There are many projects in downtown Danbury overseen by responsible developers committed to Danbury that didn't receive such breaks. For example: new three bedroom condominiums are being built on the corner of Division Street and Park Avenue. For example: several years ago the Nolan family developed the Harrison Square apartment project on Main Street. For example, the Nolan family has rehabilitated several multi-family houses on Terrace Place in downtown Danbury. None of these developers received a windfall in the form of a tax abatement; yet they committed their time, energy, vision and money to creating real housing opportunities in downtown Danbury.

Damaging: the tax abatements will cost the City of Danbury millions of dollars in lost taxes and lost sewer and water charges. Moreover, the developer has decided to market the rental building on Crosby Street to college students as an alternative to dorm living. I hold two degrees from Western Connecticut State University. I truly believe the college adds a lot to the City of Danbury and I have no problem with the concept of college students living in downtown Danbury. I do, however, recall that the reason the mayor and the developer gave for the granting of the tax abatement was to spur economic development through the creation of market rate housing in the downtown area. Even if you agree with this argument, it is hard to envision exactly how much economic activity will be generated by college students!

The 500-unit complex on Kennedy Avenue hasn't even begun yet. Once its open, however, this will generate traffic on an already congested downtown. Moreover, this will generate burdens on the Danbury Schools and the Police and Fire Departments. Yet while this project will create these burdens to the owners will not be contributing to the costs because of the tax abatement. Instead, the rest of the property owners in Danbury will have to carry these costs for seven years!