Comments(8)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

I was planning on writing on what I learned regarding the whole Maxwell’s closing situation but Mark Langlois at the Danbury Patch pretty much nailed it.

Maxwell’s Sports Bar and Grill closed at 1 Ives St., last week and sometime between midnight on March 24 and 1:27 p.m. March 25, someone stole 14 TVs, liquor, three kegs of beer and two video games.

“They were carefully removed,” said Capt. Thomas Wendel, spokesman for the Danbury Police Department. “None of the wires were severed.”

Wendel also said there was no sign of forced entry into the downtown eatery.

This isn’t good news for Ives Street, said Victor Aravena, who opened the Alley Way Diner, 14 Ives St., in 2006.

“I’ve seen three pizza restaurants come and go and nine other places come and go out,” Aravena said. “We’re getting Sonic, but the heart of Danbury is slowly dying. It used to be a destination.”

Ives Street has been in a tailspin since the mayor’s office placed new restrictions on establishments on the street once known as a popular entertainment destination.

Wendel also said there was no sign of forced entry into the downtown eatery.

This isn’t good news for Ives Street, said Victor Aravena, who opened the Alley Way Diner, 14 Ives St., in 2006.

“I’ve seen three pizza restaurants come and go and nine other places come and go out,” Aravena said. “We’re getting Sonic, but the heart of Danbury is slowly dying. It used to be a destination.”

[...]

One of the numerous changes Danbury is considering involves the ordinance that says a restaurant is a business that makes most of its money from food, while a nightclub makes most of its money from liquor. The city limited the number of nightclubs allowed. (So business owners sought restaurant liquor licenses, but served little or no food, the city argued.) Now the city is struggling to find a balance. In the economic downturn, the city ordinance seems to be getting in the way of business.

“Something drastic has to happen,” Aravena said.

It may not sound drastic, but the city is preparing a downtown plan that will look at this issue and other downtown issues with the goal of improving downtown Danbury.

“We’re evaluating the whole issue of night clubs and the food and beverage mixture,” said Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton. “We want to encourage full-blown development. We may be loosening the regulations.”

Andrea Gartner, executive director of CityCenter Danbury, said Danbury has to rediscover its heart.

“The downtown contributes to the wellness and health of the region,” Gartner said.

Make sure to read the entire piece at the Patch. The article provides a good history on the chain of events that resulted with the increase of entertainment establishments along Mill Plain Road in the last 5 years.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

Last Sunday, food fanatics packed Two Steps Downtown Grille to cheer on their favorite ammeter chef at the fifth annual Chili-Cook Off.

This year, I decided to stop by the popular event and witness the madness first-hand…

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

Mark Boughton and Steve Levy during happier times. Mayors and County Executives for Immigration Reform press conference, City Hall 12.08.05

Seems like Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is no where to be found.

Levy, along with Mark Boughton, co-founded the anti-immigrant group Mayors and County Executives for Immigration Reform, recently announced that he would not seek a third term in office amid a 16 month investigation into his campaign fundraising practices.

CBS New York, March 24:

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy says he will not seek a third term and voluntarily turned over about $4 million in campaign funds to the district attorney following a 16-month investigation.

[...]

Levy, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2010, made the stunning announcement Thursday afternoon in a press release.

In the statement, Levy said he had “been blessed” by being able to work as a public servant for 25 years. He said his decision “was not made lightly,” adding that “long hours, tough decisions, grueling debates, family sacrifices” have made him “look to new challenges.”

District Attorney Thomas Spota said a 16-month investigation by the Government Corruption Bureau “revealed serious issues with regard to fundraising and the manner in which it was conducted, including the use of public resources.”

As Boughton’s anti-immigrant BFF, Levy is no stranger to controversy when it comes to the topic of immigration but his AWOL status has several in Suffolk Country concerned.

CBS New York March 29:

Has Steve Levy gone into hiding? Several days after the embattled Suffolk County Executive announced he would not seek re-election amid an ongoing campaign fundraising investigation, the question remains…where is Levy?

[...]

A move that has legislator John Cooper question Levy’s timing.

“This is not the time for us to have an absent county executive so my hope is after the next few days the county executive will come back, collect himself and get back to doing the peoples’ business,” said Cooper.

Cooper is not calling for Levy to resign amid all the controversy, but he’s hopeful that if the controversy becomes too much of a distraction the county executive will, as Cooper told WCBS 880, do the right thing for the county.

“I remain concerned about how that’s going to – long term – affect the ability of Steve Levy to lead,” said Cooper.

Fundraising controversy? It seems like Boughton and Levy have more in common besides their anti-immigrant stance.

Comments(3)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

You would think that after being roundly criticized over his “birther bill, State Senator Mike McLachlan would try any avoid embarrassing himself.

Think again.

Pat Scully of The Hanging Shad has the details…

Despite the fact the state is facing an historic $4 billion budget deficit, Sen. McLachlan seems to want to spend time debating:

• A bill that would prohibit rationing of health care. Apparently playing on the fears of those who say the Obama healthcare plan would result in “rationing” care, the bill’s (No. 545; LCO 1998) stated purpose is, “To prohibit private and public insurers from rationing health care benefits or requiring insured persons to participate in end-of-life counseling.” Seriously? He wants to spend time on this? It gets better.
• A bill requiring the study of “the founding documents” of the United States in high school. The bill (No. 426, LOC 1672) requires “the study of the founding documents, including, but not limited to, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, in the civics and American Government component of the high school graduation requirements.” One would think the leaders of his own caucus would slap this one down. Republicans have long screamed for local control in education.
• A Joint Resolution (No. 10, LCO 1368) calling “upon the Congress of the United States to abide by the terms, conditions and spirit of the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.” The tenth amendment, of course, says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Sen. McLachlan is certainly entitled to his political views. But it seems a monumental waste of time to spend even a moment of the state legislature’s time for McLachlan to make his political statements. Each one of these bills has to be drafted and printed by the Legislative Commissioners Office. It takes time and money. He should go join a conservative activist group and stop wasting the legislature’s time.

If you plan on attending Senator McLachlan’s hour long complaint on the state budget tonight at City Hall (6-8PM), make sure to ask him why he’s wasting the people’s time with his frivolous proposals.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

Danbury Patch has the latest on the Troy Grant court case:

Troy Grant, 41, who faces more than 100 years in prison on sexual assault charges, was assigned a new public attorney earlier this month.

Grant was initially being represented by Danbury Attorney Jim Diamond. On March 9, Diamond’s motion to drop the Grant case was heard and granted. Diamond explained that in addition to a breakdown in the client-attorney relationship, he did not have a retainer agreement with Grant to go forward with the case. Judge Susan Reynolds granted Diamond’s request to be removed from the case.

Rather than choosing to represent himself or seek private representation, Grant applied for a public defender March 9. Public defender Angelica Papastavros was assigned to the case. She was not available for comment.

Grant’s case is continued for April 8th.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

Danbury Attorney Dan Casagrande: New York Law Jounral 03.24.11

“The city would much rather have tried the case and won it because we believe, as we have all along, that Danbury police officers had probable cause” for arrest because the laborers committed traffic violations by running into the street.

Wait, wait! According to Mayor Boughton (Dec 2006) and Chief Baker (Danbury 11 press conference in 2007), the raid on Kennedy Park was a federal operation and the city played no role in the action.

Boughton Dec 2006:

Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action…

Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planning of the raid…

Hartford Courant (Dec 2006):

A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. “We asked nicely,” said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. “They didn’t answer. We sued.”

[...]

In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they’d be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.

Fairfield Weekly (a week before the lawsuit was filed):

A year ago, eleven Ecuadorian day laborers were sneakily apprehended in Danbury’s Kennedy Park by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with help from some men pretending to be contractors. They had some hard hats, a van and, according to recently uncovered information, a few Danbury police badges.

Why were the local cops assisting in a federal sting? Well, according to remarks from Danbury mayor Mark Boughton last December, they weren’t. He repeatedly said the city played no role in the ICE raid.

[...]

Simon Moshenberg, a Yale Law Student representing the “Danbury 11″ in a federal court case that began Monday, received the booking report for the arrests after placing a FOIA request. Under “arresting officer,” was the name “Lolli,” which turns out to be the name of a Danbury police officer. The Danbury News-Times quotes Chief Al Baker explaining that the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers’ effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van. The department chose not to further comment on their involvement when approached by the Weekly.

Boughton elaborated in an e-mail that “the city provided logistical support to ICE,” which is “common” and “does not mean that the Danbury PD planned, organized or carried out the raid.” He stands by his comments from December.

So after years of telling the public that the city played NO PART in what happened at Kennedy Park, after the case is settled, the city now claims “that Danbury police officers had probable cause” for arrest because the laborers committed traffic violations by running into the street.”

Well, it’s just so nice that the city FINALLY admitted that they WERE involved in the raid AND that they arrested the day laborers. Oh, by the way, if the city felt so compelled that they was probable cause to ARREST the day laborers at Kennedy Park, why WEREN’T ANY OF THE DAY LABORERS CHARGED WITH ANY TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS? Why were the day laborers only charged with an immigration violation?

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, testifying under oath in a recent deposition for a civil rights lawsuit, agreed that using a traffic violation as a pretext to inquire about someone’s legal status is wrong, even though his police department rounded up a group of immigrants in 2006 on a crime they were never charged with.

[...]

In their own depositions, Danbury police officers testified that the men were picked up for an alleged traffic violation, such as “illegal use of the highway by a pedestrian,” as they approached stopped vehicles seeking workers, but the men were never charged with any such infraction, according to the booking records.

The only charge was illegal entry into the U.S., which is a federal violation.

Keep telling the public that the city settled the case because of the insurance company…in Danbury, if a public official tells a lie enough times, it becomes the truth (even when you expose the lie).

In numerous news accounts at the time of the Sept. 19, 2006 arrests, Boughton said the operation was not ordered by the city, but was rather a federal operation that Danbury assisted with, based on information he received at the time from Police Chief Alan Baker.

ICE agent James Brown, according to court documents, rejected that description. “He (Boughton) said the city did not order the operation, that ICE was already on the way. That is not correct, not for this activity that we are talking about on Sept. 19,” Brown testified.

Danbury police Lt. James Fisher, in a separate deposition, testified that Danbury police initiated the action by seeking ICE assistance, which ICE approved after the third or fourth request. ICE agent Richard McCaffrey in his deposition, said Boughton was pressuring the police chief, who pressured the department’s Special Investigations Division “to do something about” the day laborers at Kennedy Park.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

This week, I made a two-part appearance on the local access show “Progressive Soup” to talk about the recent settlement in the Danbury 11 immigration civil lawsuit as well as Mayor Mark Boughton’s deposition in the case.

Tonight on The Marty Heiser Show (Comcast channel 23 at 9PM), I plan to talk further about the Danbury 11 case and the mayor’s deposition. I’ll also planning on showing various interviews I did on this subject over the years as well as present comments Boughton made to the media from 2006 to present.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

Daily Kos:

Fifth CD Rep. Chris Murphy holds a narrow lead over Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz in the Democratic primary—which won’t be held for more than a year, and which could feature additional candidates (a few other people are poking their noses around the race). Murphy has a nine-point lead with men, but Bysiewicz’s advantage with women is just three points. She does win African Americans by a large margin, but they only make up 11% of the primary electorate in our sample. The biggest difference between the candidates is in their favorables: Murphy scores an impressive 51-14 among Democrats, while Bysiewicz is at 45-27.

Even though no Republicans have officially declared their candidacies yet, we tested the general election (registered voters) as well:

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 44
Mark Boughton (R): 34
Undecided: 22

Chris Murphy (D): 52
Mark Boughton (R): 29
Undecided: 19

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 45
Michael Fedele (R): 35
Undecided: 20

Chris Murphy (D): 51
Michael Fedele (R): 29
Undecided: 20

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 45
Scott Frantz (R): 30
Undecided: 24

Chris Murphy (D): 51
Scott Frantz (R): 27
Undecided: 22

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 50
Linda McMahon (R): 39
Undecided: 12

Chris Murphy (D): 54
Linda McMahon (R): 38
Undecided: 9

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 42
Rob Simmons (R): 39
Undecided: 19

Chris Murphy (D): 49
Rob Simmons (R): 34
Undecided: 18
(MoE: ±3.4%)

If I were Susan Bysiewicz, I’d be pretty pleased with these numbers—even the most popular Republicans can’t crawl their way into the 40s. But if I were Chris Murphy, I’d be even more stoked, and it’s not hard to see why: He crushes the nobodies by twenty-plus-point margins, bodyslams Linda McMahon by sixteen and hold even the semi-popular Rob Simmons to a fifteen point spread. Again, the difference lies in the favorables: Statewide, all voters like Murphy by a 40-27 spread. Bysiewicz, on the other hand, is under water at 31-41. It’s a testament to how weak Republicans are in Connecticut that they do so poorly against her, with only Simmons making the race even appear to be competitive.

Although most people polled responded “Boughton who?” when asked for their opinion of our mayor, most who knew Mark didn’t have anything good to say about him.

Click here to view the entire poll (Public Policy Polling, 400 Registered Voters, MoE 4.9%, Mar 17, 2011 – Mar 20, 2011).