Earlier today, while attending Gov. Lamont's end-of-session press conference at the State Capitol, I had the opportunity to conduct an interview with Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi, during which he detailed his opposition to the recently passed housing omnibus bill.
There has been a historic bipartisan backlash against the bill, with a diverse group of state lawmakers, mayors, First Selectpersons, and land-use board members from both sides of the political aisle expressing their dissatisfaction with the package.
In Ridgefield, Democratic State Representatives Aimee Berger-Girvalo and Savet Constantine, who represent Ridgefield, New Canaan, and Wilton, joined their colleagues from Greater Danbury in opposing a bill that significantly restricts public participation and local control over housing matters in communities across the state. However, Ridgefield's State Senators Julie Kushner and Ceci Maher voted in favor of this controversial bill.
NOTE: If you’re an elected official or member of the land-use board in the Greater Danbury community and wish to offer your take on HB 5002, reach out to me via Messenger, email at hatcityblog@yahoo.com, or phone/text the HatCityBLOG hotline at (203) 885-7694.
THIS IS A VERY FAST AND DEVELOPING STORY…
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.
