Mark Boughton explanation on giving BRT a SEVEN YEAR tax break on the Crosby apartments (which is basically turned into a dormitory for college students): News-Times 10.30.07
Brookview Commons is bringing in new people - and money to Danbury, something desperately needed downtown"
Mark Boughton on the Democrats call to recind the BRT/Crosby Street tax give-away: Danbury News-Times 10.30.07
"I think the public is being sold a bag of goods..."
Mark Boughton DEFENDING the present use of the BRT/Crosby (a.k.a a dormitory for Western Connecticut State University): Danbury News-Times 10.30.07.
The mayor also said the developer's decision to market to college students does not violate the agreement with the city, so the Democrats have no basis to ask that the tax break be repealed.
Now, this is just a snapshot into Boughton's defiant defense of his BRT SEVEN YEAR TAX GIVEAWAY as well as BRT's decision to use the property as a dormitory, and his dismissal of the Democrats attempts to question and/or recind the tax giveaway.
After over a year of the Democrats attempting to do someting about the BRT tax give-away (only to be blocked), and NOW in the current economic environment, the Republican-controlled Common Council and the same mayor who was SO defiant in his support of his SEVEN YEAR tax break to BRT as well as BRT using the condo complex as a dormitory have a change of heart.
Democrats want to tighten a law that gives tax incentives to developers and companies looking to do business in the city.
Common Council member Thomas Saadi wants the law tweaked so if a developer receives a tax incentive for given a project -- and then the nature of the project changes -- the tax incentive is abandoned unless the issue comes back to the Common Council for review.
Mayor Mark Boughton, a Republican, agreed.
"There are some unanswered questions, and it may require some tweaking, but the larger idea of having a project come back for reauthorization if there is a substantive change makes sense," Boughton said.
This is a textbook definition of hypocrisy...and luckily I have over a year of video footage of Boughton and the Republican controlled Common Council defending the tax giveaway and BRT's decision to use the property as a dormitory.
NOTE TO EUGENE DRISCOLL: It might be wise to call the mayor out on this OBVIOUS FLIP-FLOP since I took the quotes from Boughton from BOTH OF YOUR ARTICLES (10.30.07 and 7.12.08).
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.