In honor to today’s News-Times article that outlines residents continued frustration with the the infamous BRT developer, this cross post from HatCityBLOG has been bumped to the top
Corner of Hospital Ave and First Street: Across the street from the BRT/Jeffery Court development
While residents around Hospital Avenue are still in an uproar over the BRT/Jeffery Court development, I decided to take a little trip back in time and show readers the history of opposition towards the development of this particular piece of land.
BRT Hillside Gardens proposal of 2005
Going back as far as 2005, residents in the area have fought against BRT over their development proposal at the current site, which was then called Hillside Gardens. NOTE: Unlike the current development at the BRT site (4 three family townhouse development) Hillside Gardens was a a larger 28 unit, 2 bedroom project.
Citing traffic concerns, due mostly to the conversion of single family homes to multi-family homes in the neighborhood that includes Virginia Ave, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Street, outraged residents came to the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the project in March, April and May to express their numerous problems with BRT’s Hillside Gardens development proposal.
Here’s a sample of the comments from the public opposition:
CLICK HERE to download the public hearing minutes (word file)
March 16:
Barbara Noone, 99 Hospital Ave., for 12 years, right across from proposed driveway location. This is a heavy traffic area. Why take down all the trees and put up multi family developments. The roads in this neighborhood are so clogged because of all the conversions from one to three family houses.
[...]
This is the most dangerous curve on Hospital Ave and the entrance to this project should not be here….Why do we have to have condominiums everywhere, why can’t we have trees anymore?
[…]
Roy Hager Jr., 90 Hospital Ave., …BRT should consider the neighbors. There already are water pressure problems and although they have asked the City for help, nothing has been done. Agreed that this is a dangerous location for the driveway. Described some motor vehicle accidents and gave his opinion on the traffic issues. Said there is no need for something like this to go there.
April 6 2005:
Alan Messan, 101 Hospital Ave., across the street from subject property. Said he is speaking for Noone’s of 99 Hospital who had death in family and could not be here tonight. Said the most important thing is that this is a very sharp curve on a dangerous hill meaning it is a treacherous place for this development.
In response, Planning commission member Kenneth Keller made the following remarks:
Mr. Keller said he was there several times especially during monsoon and has major concerns about traffic and the sight line. Said people always drive too fast on this road. Said he is concerned about the density and the necessary blasting. Mr. Blaszka reiterated Mr. Keller’s comments. Said he has made two site visits, one being tonight, when he was driving into sun and totally blinded. Could not see traffic coming in other direction until it is right upon you.
April 20 2005: On this date, before the pubic expressed their opposition to the project, Traffic Engineer Bruce Hilson made the following observation when he made a site visit to the location of the proposal project:
Visibility is very poor.
Now the public:
Will Hager, 90 Hospital Ave, submitted a petition with 51 signatures against this project, believe this project is monolithic in nature and request that it be downsized. Also driveway is in a poor position and a traffic hazard. Wall along back of project abuts their properties and they do not know what is happening with that.
Alan Messan, 101 Hospital Ave. this is quality of life issue. Haven’t heard people from Danbury speak- all of their experts are from out of town. Nothing else like this in the neighborhood. Improving the site lines is good thing but when adding 60 or more cars per day, it will not make much of a difference. Last week it took him seven minutes to get out of his driveway. Suggested they check the Police report.
Barbara Noone, 99 Hospital Ave., they can try to improve site line by taking down neighbors grade but they can’t take the hill out of the road. Asked where is Jeffery Court? There are no street signs for it. Will they need a traffic light at the bottom of hill where it meets Germantown Rd. The trees that are blocking the view will be naked in the winter and they will be looking at the back of the condos. Safety is the big concern here. The School being there means that a lot of kids walk on this road. Also there is a fire station at bottom of hill. There are ambulances and emergency vehicles traveling on this road all day and night.
[…]
Jeannie Chapin, Third St. in the morning cannot get out of her driveway then has to wait to get onto Virginia Ave. cannot travel on Hospital Ave. any longer. Has to circumvent the area. The traffic problem is insane, the water runoff is bad too. BRT put up a slab house on her street and it has caused drainage problems. Begging for no more multi-family communities in Danbury.
Renee Sturges, 88 Hospital Ave., said here house will back up to the second building. There is a major traffic problem here and she would like to see some research on traffic incidents on this road. Someone ran into her tree last year while speeding up the hill, luckily no one was hurt. Can’t let her children play in front yard. Getting out into traffic in the morning is already a problem so concerned about location of driveway.
John Noone, 99 Hospital Ave., said current sightline is 120 feet. Said he used to use this area to store his leaves from the fall to spring. Cannot see if a car is coming have to rely on hearing a car coming. Witnessed many accidents had them land in his front yard. Reason for accidents is because road is only wide enough to support one vehicle on each side. When road gets wet, it becomes like black ice in summer and in winter, it is always slick. Rainy weather always results in people losing control. Children walk on this road, nurses walk on their lunch hour, and runners use it too. Biggest culprits of speeding are buses. proposed trees will block the sightline. People traveling on this road are not going to be watching the driveway to see if anyone is coming out.
May 4 2005:
Feeling the heat from the residents, this is Dan Bertram of BRT said during the meeting:
Dan Bertram, BRT, said he has taken step back to try to figure out what can be done on this parcel. It is located at the end of a residential neighborhood. He met with some of the neighbors trying to address their concerns. Trying to create a transition from residential to commercial area. Amendments to R3 Zone last year were to try to control the multitude of conversions from single family dwellings to three family dwellings that overtook this area. Set out to incorporate garden apartment community on this site. Tried to show various perspectives but the galvanizing issue on this site is the traffic. Realizes this is a dangerous curve. Has tried to address helicopter path comments. Said they just received a report from the Planning Department and will address it. Asked for feedback from Commission members too. They are trying to address whatever they can.
And then the pubic spoke out again…this time, in the form of a petition against the proposal.
Will Hager, 90 Hospital Ave. submitted petition with ninety names in opposition.
May 18 2005:
Betty Jane Dinto, Triangle St., since 1944, has seen many changes in Danbury. Point of zoning law is to allow the citizens to benefit. To continue to allow multi family units to be built is not to the benefit of all the citizens….Purpose of zoning is for slow healthy change. Thought Mayor was going to institute a five year moratorium.
Robert Beers, City of Danbury Highway Dept employee, happens to live on Third St. His plow route is Hospital Ave. and they all know how dangerous this road is. The location of this driveway will make it very hard to move traffic in and out safely
Alan Messan, 101 Hospital Ave., asked audience to raise hands so the Commission can see how many of them there are. Said BRT has threatened to sue Mr. Keller quickly corrected him saying that was not in the record. Said it is violation of the Zoning Regulations to cut a new driveway across from his.
Joe CarCare, Birch St., for five years. One of older houses in area. Some of concerns are safety and snow removal appearance of neighborhood. Sure this will be beautiful but it will still be condos. And there will be a parking lot. What about the drainage once this is cut out.
Again, this is a small sample of the public’s opposition to the development proposed by BRT at this location back in 2005, and although this is a different development than what’s being built there now, the traffic concerns are the same.
On July 20 2005, the Planning Commission issued a resolution of denial to the project.
Here are two of the commission’s most important concerns:
The proposal is not designed in a manner which is compatible with the character of the neighborhood §10.C.4.a.(2).
In addition to provisions of §10.C.4. of the Zoning Regulations, §8-2 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that zoning regulations be made “…with reasonable consideration as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses…”
The existing neighborhood consists largely of single family homes mixed with a limited number of two and three family dwellings. The proposed development consists of three row house buildings, two of which are interconnected by underground parking and presented as one building. These proposed buildings contain eight dwelling units each. Rather than being one unit deep, as are other residential buildings in the neighborhood, they each consist of buildings which are two units deep, resulting in a building mass considerable greater than other buildings in the adjacent neighborhood.
In addition, the proposed buildings are situated on the crest of a hill overlooking First Avenue. In many places, the base of the buildings will appear to be approximately 30 feet above the street and existing adjacent residences. Consequently, even though the proposed buildings comply with the height restrictions of the R-3 zoning district (30’), the topography of this particular site will result in building elevations far greater than that of surrounding dwellings when viewed within the context of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission cannot determine reasonable requirements to ensure compliance with §10.C.4.a.(2) of the Zoning Regulations.
1. The proposal will create conditions adversely affecting traffic safety or which will cause undue traffic congestion (§10.C.4.a.(3).
2. Westbound vehicular access to the proposed site is from Hospital Avenue, a continuously curving road segment that is impeded by the steepness of the slope (13%± grade) from its intersection with First Street to the proposed driveway. This road provides major access to the neighborhood, Broadview Middle School, the Danbury Hospital and other medical offices. In addition to private vehicles, Hospital Avenue is used by school buses and ambulances.
3. The applicant’s traffic engineer has estimated that the proposed development will generate 218 vehicular trips per day for a 28 dwelling unit development, a number which we presume will be proportionately less for the amended 24 unit proposal. Police accident reports were submitted by members of the public attesting to a number of accidents that have occurred at the sharp curve near the crest of the hill since 2000.
4. We find that additional traffic entering and exiting the site will increase traffic on Hospital Avenue and thus adversely affect traffic safety because of the steepness of the hill and sharp curve of the road. We are also mindful of provisions of §8-2 of the C.G.S. which state, in part, that “…regulations shall be designed to lessen congestion in the streets…” Adding vehicular trips on this segment of Hospital Avenue clearly will not lessen congestion.
Again, realize that the proposal in 2005 was a larger project but that does not change the concerns from the residents who have serious problems with a MULTI-FAMILY project at that particular location on Hospital Ave.
In response to the Planning Commission denial, BRT took the city to court, and LOST. CLICK HERE to download document: (word file)
That basically brings up to date on the history of opposition against BRT developing this piece of land.
In future posts, I’ll explain how the infamous residential developer worked around the court’s ruling to develop the land. You’ll also hear what residents who fought the original development proposal have to say regarding what BRT is doing to their neighborhood.
Last week, at a press conference at Mill Ridge School, the Connecticut Institute for Communities (CIC) and Danbury School system announced that the city received a 880,000 federal grant to expand the Early Head Start program.
Citing the efforts of Congressman Chris Murphy and Senator Chris Dodd in making sure the grant was approved, CIC President James Maloney informed those in attendance that the funding will be aimed at hiring 20 new staff members for the additional children and parents who will be able to receive education and health services with the grant.
From last week, here’s video footage from the press conference.
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 32 percent or D-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 17 percent or F.
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 55 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 47 percent or D+
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 61 percent or C+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 44 percent or D+
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 50 percent or C-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 36 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 54 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 27 percent or F
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 54 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 40 percent or D
Hayestown Avenue School
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 53 percent or C-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 36 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 46 percent or D+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 41 percent or D
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 45 percent or D+
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 27 percent or F
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 58 percent or C
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 54 percent or C
OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of students meeting state goals across all subjects: 71 percent or B-
STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE
Average percentage of low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students meeting state goals across all subjects: 42 percent or D+
…so much for Mayor Boughton’s record when it comes to education.
For a more detailed breakdown of the school’s scores, visit the ConnCANN website.
I wonder how Keith Whamond feels about Joe LIEberman lying to his face?
A few months ago, the junior senator from the state of Aetna did an online interview with Whamond where he took with a series of questions form the public.
Here’s what Joementum said about expanding Medicare.
My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid…
“When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they’re too young to qualify for Medicare.
“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you’re 55 or 60 and you’re without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you’re older … you’re rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money.
That was Lieberman back then…this is Lieberman now.
We’ve got to stop adding to the bill,” said Lieberman. “We have to start subtracting some controversial things. I think the only way to get this done before Christmas is to bring in some Republicans who are open minded on this like [Sen.] Olympia Snowe…”
How does one do that, asked host Bob Schieffer?
“You have to take out the Medicare buy-in,” said Lieberman. “You have to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the CLASS Act, which was a whole new entitlement program that will, in future years, put us further into deficit. And you have to adopt some of the cost containment provisions…. If you did that, you’d have an enormous accomplishment. Thirty million Americans who can’t afford insurance today would get it. Insurance companies would be more aggressively regulated and costs would be bent down. It’s time to get reasonable.
…unreal.
UPDATE: Whamond’s interview with Lieberman is making news on all the networks. Here’s Chris Matthews commenting on LIEberman’s flip-flop.
UPDATE 2: Good grief! Today, at his press conference, Joe Lieberman addressed the Whamond interview and LIED again.
LIEBERMAN: I didn’t change my mind on the Medicaid buy-in…
As I stated in a previous post, Mayor Boughton, his administration, and the elected officials who are directly responsible for dividing this city among ethnic lines are doing everything in their power to make the general public believe that the topic of xenophobia and anti-immigrant racism is not an issue in Danbury.
…and as evident by the hate-crime that was committed in October, and the continued taunts and racial slurs directed towards the immigrant community, and the failure of elected officials to even acknowledge the problem, when it comes to racial insensitivity, Danbury leads the charge in Connecticut.
When it comes to the divisive tone towards the immigrant community in the city, as the chief elected official, Mayor Boughton clearly deserves majority of the blame…but in this case, the buck doesn’t stop with him.
From the passage of the so-called noise/volleyball ordinance (which was directly aimed at the Ecuadorian community), the so-called parade ordinance (a proposal that sold by the mayor and anti-immigrant activists, and their supporters on the council as a way to squash spontaneous celebrations associated with the World Cup games), to the outlandish claims used by supporters of ICE ACCESS as a rationale for the passage of controversial program, for years, members of the Common Council have mirrored the mayor’s divisive tone in their decision making, comments, and threats against immigrant-related organizations.
…and just like the mayor, when the issue of racial tensions in the city becomes the topic of conversation, these same members of the council turn a blind eye to the matter and fail to even acknowledge that the problem exists in the city.
Case in point, here’s a very telling video clip from the Common Council at-large forum from back in October. Here’s the text of the first question:
The issue of immigration has been very divisive for our community. How would you change the tone of the debate and reduce tensions among Danbury residents?
As you watch the videoclip, pay CLOSE attention to the reaction to the question from the VERY members of the council who are most responsible for the anti-immigrant legislation in the city that was described earlier.
Lets take a closer look at the “answers” these members of the council gave to the simple question:
The relative of the beloved former Democratic Mayor Gino Arconti takes a note from the current mayor and ignores the issue of racial divisiveness altogether…
This immigration issue…I don’t think the question is divisive as the question poses.
Then in the next breath, continuing to ignore the issue, Arconti goes on a rant about his blind support for ICE ACCESS… something that has absolutely nothing to do with the moderator’s question.
…and in speaking with my constituents, I found that this was as issue that most people were in favor of having ICE ACCESS for the Danbury Police officers….
To put icing on the cake, Arconti finished his monologue with this gem…
Back in July of 2004, probably a little known fact that an illegal immigrant was here on the streets of Danbury. This immigrant was a convicted serial killer that was located by our officers and was taken into custody
Notwithstanding the fact that I haven’t verified Arconti’s statement, here are a few things to consider in regards to Arconti’s “statement.”
In his rationale for ICE ACCESS, according to Arconti, in JULY 2004 Danbury Police officers located a convicted illegal immigrant, and took him into custody. Now if the police department was able to apprehend and identify, an undocumented immigrant with a felony criminal record and take him in to custody without ICE ACCESS, then how is can this be a rationale for having ICE ACCESS in Danbury?
This ONE incident (an incident in which the police had no problem finding the individual) is this Arconti’s justification for ICE ACCESS in Danbury..a city that brags about having one of the lowest crime rates in Connecticut? Would anyone want to guess how many undocumented immigrant criminal felons are there in a city that has one of the lowest crime rates in the state?
Based on Arconti’s own statement, it seems like the Danbury Police Department was doing quite well without ICE ACCESS, which is not surprising seeing that the police department were not the ones who requested that the city get involved with ICE ACCESS in the first place. That piece of micromanagement goes to the Republican members of the Common Council who did this back in September of 2007 (just in time for the mayor to make it a campaign issue against them Democratic candidate Helana Abrantes).
And again, lets not forget that Arconti completely ignored of issue of racial tensions in Danbury…something that’s been around well before the debate over ICE ACCESS (and as a former police officer, an issue that’s he’s well aware of).
Like I said in the video, I think it’s fair to say that this picture best explains this councilman’s mindset and although I could go on and about Mr. Arconti, it’s better to move on…
Next up to bat, Republican Colleen Stanley:
The issue of immigration was not divisive in our community, it was the issue of illegal immigration that was divisive. But I also want to…hmmm, uh…explain how Danbury also has a long history of welcoming the immigrants into our community.
We have a many, many programs designed to assist the new immigrants into Danbury […] and I as a current councilwoman would continue to if elected to support our immigrant community.
Notwithstanding the fact that Stanley also COMPLETELY ignored the question of addressing the divisive racial tensions in the city, she continued by pointing off a series of programs in the area that are designed to help the immigrant community as well as pledging to support these program if re-elected.
There’s only one problem with her statement, she left out the largest organization who’s sole mission Danbury is to support the immigrant community with every single program she outlined…The Hispanic Center of Greater Danbury.
The history between the Republicans on the Common Council, and anti-immigrant community, and the Hispanic Center will have to wait for another post but in short, the Hispanic Center were one of the first organizations to speak out against the anti-immigrant policies of the Mayor Boughton…something the Republcians on the council (including Councilwoman Stanley) have always resented.
The story of the Hispanic Center will have to wait for another post, so lets move on again.
Saving the best for last, here’s Republican Phil Curran:
I don’t even accept this question at all because I think the strong point for Danbury, when I walk around and talk to my constituents, is the fact that we’re such adverse community…I just think that the problem we have with questions like this is that it’s certain people in the community that try to drum up problems.
Curran couldn’t answer the question because he refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem with race in Danbury. Even worse, he has the audacity to say that the issue of racism in the city is a result of a certain segment of the population (immigrants…wink, wink) who want to “drum up” things.
Tell to that to the thousands of people who demonstrated outside of City Hall during the ICE ACCESS vote or the THOUSANDS who demonstrated in the 2005 and 2006 rallies down Main Street or the HUNDREDS to protested against the Danbury 11 case. Better yet, maybe Curran can explain himself to the two immigrants who were victims of a hate-crime DAYS BEFORE THE FORUM or the scores of people who were victims of racism who have complained about the problem only to be ignored.
Yeah Phil, they’re complaining just to “drum things up…”
Somehow I get the impression that the constituents Phil talks to doesn’t extend to people who live in the downtown area (you know, the area where most of the xenophobia against the immigrant community is taking place…)
I think Curran’s comment speaks volumes about the tone-deafness of our elected officials in the city…the same elected officials who are offended whenever someone rightfully calls Danbury the most racially divisive city in Connecticut.
As you saw, not one of the Republican council members on the panel answered the question that was directed to them by the moderator. In fact, only one person at the forum answered the question with common sense, Democrat Warren Levy.
Robert Riley, a Republican on the Common Council, said the city may need to go beyond creating a steering committee. It may be time to start a task force that will work to heal the divisiveness the immigration debate has caused in recent years, Riley said.
A task force formed after a race riot in 1976 proved to be effective, said Riley, a former Danbury teacher.
“Maybe if we all just sat down, maybe we can have a better understanding on all sides,” Riley said.
Unfortunately, Levy lost his re-election bid to the council…
In short, people on the council like Boughton, Arconti, Stanley, and Curran, are symbolic of a segment of Danbury’s political environment that feel more comfortable ignoring the issue of racism in the city as opposed to acknowledging that the it exist.
In short, if one avoids the problem, then one become part of the problem.
Hear no racism, see no racism, refuse to acknowledge racism
Over the last couple months, people who desire that the topic of immigration would go away are trying to claim that Danbury doesn’t have a racial intolerance problem or that the problem has “toned down”.
As indicated by the most recent “reported” hate-crime that made front page news last week, nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the “reported” crime only vindicates those in the community who have long stated that racial hatred directed at the immigrant community is, for the most part, being ignored by elected-officials who refuse to acknowledge that the problem exist.
And when it comes to ignoring anti-immigrant xenophobia in the city, no one does it better than Danbury’s last honest man who occupies the corner office on the third floor of city hall.
As someone who has followed the assault on the immigrant community from its beginnings, Mayor Mark Boughton’s refusal to properly address the ever rising level of racism in the city (under his watch) has been well documented over the years.
One of the mayor’s most “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” moments happened at a forum on immigration that was held at the library back in February 2006.
In the following video clip, Boughton is confronted by a parent who was alarmed with the racial hatred and xenophobia she and her child experienced in their short time in the city. Boughton’s initial response to the mother’s concern spoke volumes that night and has served as a template for the way the mayor has addressed the topic of racism in his city ever since.
As a side note, look at the flippant reaction from anti-immigrant / hate-group leader Elise Marciano and her ilk (a.k.a., the people most responsible for xenophobia in the area that the parent is talking about). They’re marked in blue in the photo above…
PARENT: I’m a newcomer to the community and I moved here because of its diversity. I don’t want to raise my son in a racist community, and I’m deeply concerned at how this immigration debate has this racist overtones. I have worked for 10 years in many different diverse communities; all of them had similar demographics to Danbury. This is the first time I’ve ever encountered such racist remarks towards me and I think you can’t ignore this issue in your community. I think there needs to be some kind of procedure in place to address the racism that’s associated with this debate.
BOUGHTON: Let me thank you for the courage to make those comments, but there is a procedure, if someone makes hateful comments to you, we have hate-crime laws on the books that are clear, you can file a complaint with the police department, we certainly don’t condone that type of activity, but what you’re suggesting I disagree with in the sense of this. You’re suggesting that we can’t have this discussion because it just becomes racist.
PARENT: No I’m not sugg…
BOUGHTON: Okay, so if we start with that premise and say this discussion is not about racism, it’s not about ethnicity, it’s not about the way somebody looks, but it’s about a failed policy that does not work, then we should be able to, a progressive community, a rationale community, and a compassionate community, should be able to have this discussion.
PARENT: That’s what I’m concerned about. Of course you should be able to have a discussion on immigration, what I am concerned about is that the discussion on immigration has led to racist overtones in the community.
Instead of addressing the parent’s concern regarding the racial acts of intimidation she and her child experienced in their brief stay in Danbury, Boughton opts to ignore the point the parent raised as if the problem doesn’t exist.
As you saw in that video clip, the issue the parent raised had nothing to do with illegal immigration (which, the last time I checked, was FEDERAL problem) but rather the increased instances of racism members of the immigrant population are experiencing.
The mayor’s response to the parent’s concern speaks for itself and is just one example of people who would rather turn a blind eye and ignore the real problem of racial hatred towards the immigrant population in Danbury…or even worse, claim that the problem doesn’t exist.
From the most recent hate-crime committed in the city, and the lack of leadership in the days after the racist email scandal, to the quickly forgotten suggestion that a committee be established, which would examine racial tensions in the community (similar to what was done after the race riots in the 1970s), the problem, which Boughton and his political party routinely fail to acknowledge, is the rise in xenophobia among a segment of the population who are openly hostile towards the immigrant community.
