To The Editor:

As former Chair of the Newtown Legislative Council’s Ordinance Subcommittee, I was disappointed by the Council’s refusal to even consider a town-wide policy for permitting large events. During my tenure, our subcommittee thoroughly reviewed public safety issues, like the Alarms Ordinance, which addressed repeated calls draining police resources. We approached every charge transparently, engaging stakeholders and crafting balanced policies for consideration. A similar process could have addressed the current lack of a unified event permitting system, but the Council dismissed it outright.

The Newtown Bee reported Main Street business owners voicing concerns about safety, parking and overcrowding due to large rallies. These legitimate worries were ignored. Newtown’s fragmented permitting processes — split across parks, Edmond Town Hall, the Community Center, and Fairfield Hills — are slow and inconsistent. A streamlined ordinance could unify these systems, enhance public safety, and respect constitutional rights while reducing bureaucratic hurdles.

Jim Allen, organizer of the Rock This Democracy events, noted that Fairfield Hills’ “30-to-60-day notice” requirement turned away organizers, forcing them into the streets as it was the path of least resistance. This is unacceptable. Newtown’s state roads, marked by past vehicular fatalities, make political events at the flagpole far riskier than events at safer venues like Fairfield Hills. A clear permitting process could prevent such outcomes, prioritizing safety without stifling expression.

First Amendment concerns raised against a permitting ordinance are overstated. The Supreme Court (Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 1989) allows reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on public assemblies, as thousands of municipalities demonstrate through effective permitting policies. Danbury’s ordinance, cited as a reference, proves these ordinances are lawful — its mayor, as Chair of the CT Democrats, even spoke at one of these events. Moreover, some Council members who opposed this ordinance on free speech grounds have previously supported restrictions on assembly and religious exercise in the name of public safety during the pandemic, raising questions about consistency.

The Council’s “no” vote sidestepped due diligence, leaving taxpayers to bear policing costs for traffic-disrupting events. This sets a troubling precedent: future event organizers could claim discrimination if asked to fund private-duty policing.

Newtown deserves better. A well-crafted ordinance, developed through transparent subcommittee review, could balance safety, free expression, and fiscal responsibility. By refusing to even consider these concerns, the Council failed our community, leaving businesses vulnerable, public safety at risk, and taxpayers footing the bill. Residents should demand accountability and a fair, unified permitting process that serves all of Newtown.

Ryan Knapp

Newtown