DanburyWORKS received grant to assist people in need
Thursday, October 03, 2019 Time: 10:58 AM
Back in May, I wrote about DanburyWORKS, a city-wide collaborative dedicated to reducing the poverty rate in Danbury by 30 percent over the next ten years.
Today, the News-Times reports that the collective received a 22,000 dollar grant from Fairfield County’s Community Foundation to assist in their efforts...
A $22,000 grant will benefit a city-wide collaborative that helps lower-income residents.
The money will help with DanburyWORKs’s efforts to support the 50 percent of Danbury residents who live in poverty or struggle to make ends meet, according to a press release. The grant came from Fairfield County’s Community Foundation.
The organization also hopes the grant will encourage national foundations to support the collaborative, which includes as partners United Way of Western Connecticut and Danbury Public School’s Western Connecticut Regional Adult & Continuing Education, among others.
Today, Democratic Mayoral candidate Chris Setaro issued a press release attacking residential developers Toll Brothers and Woodlanbd Groups alleging that they prohibited “homeowners of speaking to government agencies against the developers.”
DANBURY, C.T. – Chris Setaro, the Democrat running for Mayor of Danbury, today took aim at efforts by developers to restrict homeowners’ first amendment rights. His campaign discovered language in warranty deeds that legally restrain homeowners and business owners from speaking publicly against developers about their projects.
A statutory warranty deed from Toll CT III for a home on Winding Ridge Way sold in 2016 includes a notice reading:
“As set forth in Paragraph 11 of a Warranty Deed from Woodland Group II LLC to WCI Communities, Inc. … the Grantees’ rights to object, appeal, otherwise influence, or take similar actions regarding the development of other parcels at The Reserve and other property is limited as more fully set forth in said Warranty Deed.”
Master Declaration of the warranty deeds for land in The Reserve reads as follows:
“Grantor conveys the Parcels and the Rights subject to, and by its acceptance of this warranty Deed, the Grantee agrees that it will not for itself, or cause any other entity or individual under its control to, with respect to the Property (as defined in the Master Declaration, as amended)... 1) object before any Commission or agency, 2) take an administrative appeal to a Commission, 3) commence an appeal or other type of lawsuit to a court with jurisdiction over the matter and/or 4) communicate with, or otherwise influence, any person working on behalf of a governmental agency…”
The same language was used in a warranty deed pertaining to Hotel Zero.
“Manipulating homeowners and business owners into forfeiting their freedom of speech is wrong,” said Setaro. “This is a consumer protection issue and it’s not okay. We need a Mayor that can tell the difference. Sometimes there are moral issues that require the attention of elected officials and this is one of them. As Mayor I will oppose clauses of this type as a matter of public policy.”
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.