Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Takeover Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends new Danbury ordinance to penalize street takeovers with fines, impoundment and possible forfeiture
Summary
The ad hoc committee recommended a new street‑takeover ordinance mirroring state law that would impose fines (up to $2,000 for repeat offenses), allow vehicle impoundment until fines and delinquent taxes are paid, and permit forfeiture and destruction after a six‑month reclamation period.
An ad hoc Danbury City committee voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a new ordinance making unauthorized street takeovers a municipal offense punishable by fines, vehicle impoundment and possible forfeiture and destruction.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Tracy Norris said the draft mirrors recent state authority (cited in the meeting as public act "50 2580") and sets progressive fines: up to $1,000 for a first offense, $1,500 for a second and $2,000 for a third. Norris said the draft permits the police to impound the vehicle until fines, impoundment and storage charges and any delinquent property taxes are paid; owners have six months to reclaim a vehicle before it may be forfeited and destroyed.
Sergeant Wakeman said Danbury has not experienced street takeovers but called the ordinance "very proactive" and said impoundment would be a "huge deterrent." The police described street takeovers as groups of vehicles blocking traffic while spectators film; officers said advance advisories have brought incidents to the department’s attention in nearby jurisdictions.
Several council members raised concerns about distinguishing unauthorized street takeovers from authorized parades or free‑speech gatherings. Councilman Rotello cautioned that prior parade‑ordinance language had been controversial and urged care so that permitted demonstrations are not swept into a prohibition. Council members asked whether vehicle definitions in the ordinance follow state motor‑vehicle law and whether social‑media posts could be used to identify participants; counsel and officers said vehicle definitions point to state law and that posted video could be evidence.
A committee member moved to recommend adoption of the new street‑takeover ordinance; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The committee forwarded its recommendation to the full City Council.
