Why do Mayor Alves and his Democratic Common Council believe we need to hire non-citizens into the Danbury Police Force?
A LOOK BACK, A Solution in Search of a Problem: Why is Danbury hiring non-citizens into our Police Force???
By Warren Levy
This year, Danbury amended its ordinance to allow DACA recipients non-citizens to be hired as police officers. Supporters argued that the change would expand the pool of eligible applicants and assist with police recruitment. The ordinance was recommended by an ad hoc committee and supported by the mayor, who himself was previously a DACA recipient before becoming a U.S. citizen. But one basic question remains unanswered. How many additional officers will this actually produce?
No public data was presented showing that large numbers of otherwise qualified applicants were being excluded solely because of the city's citizenship requirement. Without measurable evidence, the ordinance appears more symbolic than practical.
The reality is that DACA recipients represent a very small Connecticut population, between 2700 to 2930 compared with the state's overall none citizen workforce of *300 thousand. Only a fraction would be interested in law enforcement careers. Meanwhile, training and equipping a new officer costs taxpayers at least $120,000 and requires roughly 18 months before an officer can work independently.
DACA itself remains legally and politically uncertain. Recipients must continually renew their status, and the program's future remains subject to federal court rulings and changing administrations. Yet city leaders devoted substantial attention to this issue despite its limited potential impact on public safety or staffing levels.
Reasonable people can support or oppose the policy. The larger concern is whether this deserved the amount of time and political capital invested in it. Danbury faces no shortage of pressing challenges. If improving police recruitment was the goal, residents deserved a data-driven analysis, not another symbolic policy debate.
Good government should focus on results, not gestures. Based on the evidence available, this ordinance is unlikely to meaningfully improve police recruitment and looks more like a distraction from issues that matter far more to taxpayers.
*U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
**US Census Bureau
DANBURY JUST TOOK A LEGAL GAMBLE MOST STATES REFUSE TO TOUCH
By Warren Levy
DANBURY JUST TOOK A LEGAL GAMBLE MOST STATES REFUSE TO TOUCH
Danbury taxpayers deserve to understand the full risk behind the Mayor Alves and his Democratic majority council’s decision to hire Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients as police officers,
A MOVE MOST STATES WON’T TOUCH.
DACA isn’t permanent American resident. There residency must be renewed every 2 years. If renewal is delayed or denied, the city must terminate the officer immediately. That alone destabilizes the force.
But policing adds two major legal problems:
• Firearms: Federal law bars individuals without lawful immigration status from possessing guns. DACA does not grant lawful status. The City’s “we’ll issue the gun each shift” workaround has never been tested in court.
And here’s the part Danbury taxpayers need to hear:
Training a police officer costs well over $250,000 and takes 18–24 months before the officer is fully deployable. That includes academy training, salary, benefits, equipment, field training, and supervision. If DACA status lapses, every dollar of that investment is lost instantly.
Meanwhile, DACA’s legality is still being fought in federal court. No one knows how that case will end.
Only a handful of states have tried this, and even they’ve moved cautiously. Danbury’s leadership chose to jump first, putting personable and political beliefs ahead of legal clarity, insurance liability, and the stability of our police force.
This isn’t about any individual. It’s about protecting Danbury from avoidable legal exposure and wasted taxpayer dollars.
Danbury deserves decisions grounded in law, not personal or political beliefs
DANBURY CHARTER REVISION SAGA: IS THE CHARTER REVISION PROCESS SERVING THE PUBLIC OR MAYOR ALVES AND HIS POLITICAL ALLIES?
(Author: Alfonso Robinson, Oct. 2, 2026)
SUBSTACK: https://ctblogger.substack.com/p/danbury-charter-revision-saga-is
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/reel/2061283507886223
DON’T BE FOOLED INTO THINKING CHARTER CHANGE IS GOOD FOR DANBURY
by Warren Levy
As I head off to Block Island for a vacation, I have been reflecting on the things that make a community special.
This time of year, most of the summer visitors have left the island behind. Nearly 46% of Block Island is protected open space, permanently preserved from development. Another 53% consists of private homes and commercial establishments, many owned by local families for generations. A large part of the island's appeal is that not much ever changes.
As I leave Danbury, I find myself thinking about what is changing here.
Danbury is the city where my two daughters went to school and later graduated from college. It is the city where I started my business 65 years ago. It is a community where I have volunteered countless hours for local organizations and for the city itself.
I have always said that there are many cities the same size as Danbury, but what sets Danbury apart is the involvement of its people. Residents care about their neighborhoods, volunteer their time, support local organizations, and stay engaged in civic life.
If Danbury is going to retain its uniqueness, it must reject the proposed Charter changes that would further concentrate government power.
Say no to a four-year mayoral term. Our state representatives and members of Congress serve two-year terms. Two-year terms have provided accountability in Danbury and have served the city well. If it ain't broken, let's not try to fix it.
Say no to expanding the Mayor's appointment authority at the expense of the people's voice.
Say no to increasing the amount of borrowing the Mayor can authorize without public approval.
Say no to eliminating staggered terms on the Board of Education, a change that would undermine continuity and long-term planning for our schools.
These proposals move Danbury away from the balance and accountability that have helped make it one of Connecticut's success stories.
Let's not change the things that have made Danbury a bright star among Connecticut's 169 cities and towns.
VOTE NO on the proposed charter changes.
Why Danbury voters should vote NO on the Charter!
CHARTER REVISION SAGA: WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE MAYOR ALVES PICKS FOR THE COMMITTEE (THE "FOLLOW THE MONEY AND POLITICAL CONNECTION" EDITION) https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AuUxbxMn3/
CHARTER REVISION SAGA: WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE MAYOR ALVES PICKS FOR THE COMMITTEE (A PRIMER) https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Do3Ge2W86/
----
READ HatCityBLOG ON SUBSTACK! https://ctblogger.substack.com/.../danbury-charter...
CHARTER REVISION SAGA: DO NOT LET MAYOR ALVES AND LARRY RIEFBERG INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE
(Alfonso Robinson, on Substack) October 11, 2026
The Working Families Party: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.
CT Politicians endorsed by the Working Families Party in 2026.
National and State Level
Jahana Hayes U.S. House of Representatives, District 5
Ned Lamont Governor
Susan Bysiewicz Lt Governor
Stephanie Thomas Secretary of State
William Tong Attorney General
Sean Scanlon Comptroller
Erick Russell Treasurer
Local Danbury Politicians Endorsed by the Working Families Party.
Farley A. Santos State House, District 109
Bob Godfrey State House, District 110
Julie Kushner State Senate, District 24
Anne Weisberg State House, District 108
Ken Gucker State House, District 138
Don’t be fooled by the name, “Working Families Party”. They do not stand for families; rather, they stand for unions, socialist policies and the destruction of the United States.
The Working Families Party is not a political party, though it has a place on the ballot line. It is an activist organization that distributes the money (some would call it money laundering) of its billionaire supporters (such as George Soros) all over the US to push the far left agenda of the progressives. While not affiliated, the WFP and the the radical DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) collaborate and ENDORSE THE SAME CANDIDATES. It is not a party of the people, rather WFP was founded largely by labor unions and community organizations. It is not grassroots, it is not pro-family. Its goal is socialism, plain and simple, in the US.
Here are some of the agenda items of the Working Families Party:
- Protect our democracy from takeover by billionaires, corporations, war profiteers. (rather IRONIC, since all their money comes from billionaires and massive unions across the US!)
- Free and universal healthcare for all residents of the US (legal and illegal). Support for single payer healthcare, which has never worked in any socialist country that has adopted it. Medicaid with no determination of eligibility.
- support in-state tuition rates at public colleges for illegals
- support for open border policy, including eliminating the border wall on the southern border of the US.
- support allowing illegal immigrants from high risk countries to enter the US, with no screening for terrorists ties.
- access to government-subsidized healthcare for all illegal immigrants.
- Take over ownership of private companies, make all corporations publicly own by government.
- Housing for all
-Cancel student debt (which means the taxpayers pay the debt. It does not just disappear.)
- Tax the rich and get big money out of politics (considering WFP is funded by the richest-of-the-rich billionaires, this is truly a ridiculous statement, and shows how duplicitous and deceptive it is!)
- pro-abortion up to birth, full support for Planned Parenthood.
- abolish ICE
- support for gender-transition under 18 years of age.
- support for men in women's sports.
- decriminalize all drug use. support for 'safe havens' for illegal drug use.
- rent control for all landlords.
- government should pay for tuition for all colleges.
- teach critical race theory in K-12; parents NOT allowed to remove their children from sex education classes that cover LGBTQ+ and gender identify.
- photo ID should NOT be required to vote.
- full support for DEI in government jobs, rather than merit-based hiring. schools required to do DEI training for teachers.
- increase foreign aid spending.
- fewer restrictions on welfare spending.
- Immigrants should not be required to learn English.
- Increase the tax rates on stocks, bonds, real estate.
- Decrease military funding.
- No government support for charter schools or and private schools.
- More restrictions on gun purchases; ban on assault weapons. allow people to sue firearms dealers and manufacturer.
Is this the agenda you want for CT? Vote against all candidates endorsed by the WFP.
Ask them to publish their application to be endorsed by the WFP. It should be publicly available for voters to read.