Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Controversial Liquor Store Had 80 Violations

A liquor store with troubles dating back nearly a quarter-century had 80 violations this year, an investigating police detective told the City Council Tuesday.

Naicken Inc., trading as Arlington Liquors/Clinton Deli & Grocery is slated for non-renewal of the owner's liquor license for the 2014-2015 term. The city has 33 liquor establishments and the council acts as the local Alcoholic Beverage Control board, granting or denying renewal each year. Eighteen licenses are up for renewal at the June 16 council meeting where owner Vadrajan Naicken faces non-renewal. Fourteen more have unresolved issues such as non-payment of state and local fees or failure to pass reviews by the Police, Fire or Inspections Divisions.

Naicken was denied license renewal last year, but appealed to the state ABC board and a decision is pending. Council President Bridget Rivers, who along with Councilman William Reid and Councilwoman Vera Greaves defended him last year, wanted to wait for the outcome. Councilwoman Gloria Taylor sought more information Tuesday, but Councilman Cory Storch asked whether there was "any downside" to passing the resolution for non-renewal. Acting Corporation Counsel John Motta said, "This is current."

"In this current year, we still have some issues," Detective Nuno Carvalho said, noting drug activity and weapons among causes for 80 violations thus far for the year.

By contrast, a nearby bar where liquor is consumed had "only 37 incidents," he said.

Carvalho said there is a "dollar figure" related to police response for the high volume of incidents.

"I recommend we go ahead," Storch said.

The "Arlington Liquors" part of the name relates to Naicken's former store on Arlington Avenue, which, according to news clips, drew complaints as far back as 1990 about loitering and drug activity. But even then, Naicken had supporters in City Council President Helen Miller and Planning Board member Rose Walker, both now deceased, who defended him at a council meeting that year.
The problems at that location ended when the city paid Naicken $90,000 for his store and $30,000 in relocation funds because of a redevelopment plan for the area. The city also paid attorney Michele Donato $5,000 for legal costs associated with the relocation. Resident Nancy Piwowar suggested at the time that the city should buy Naicken's license, but that did not happen due to concerns over the possible cost.
Naicken eventually relocated to West Front Street near Clinton Avenue, but problems continued. He only won license renewal in 2011 with requirements that he install multiple security cameras and hire armed guards. But when the 2012-2013 renewal period came up, police reported 254 calls to the premises in the 2011-12 term for incidents including sale of alcohol to minors, drug possession, fights, assaults, weapons offenses and sale of loose cigarettes. The most disturbing report to city officials and police was that drugs were found on several occasions “beneath the ice cream freezer” within the store, where ice cream and candy were sold to children.

--Bernice

9 comments:

  1. I really wonder why we need more information. This guy should have been shut down years ago. It begs the question of who was getting paybacks to keep this slimball in business. We have more liquor stores and bars than we really need. Reminds me of Trenton in the 70s when I was in college. Too many bars and too much being spent on police to keep bad businesses intact.

    Bob Bolmer

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seriously? This breeding ground of calamity, crime, and revulsion has had supporters who are Council members? These Council members always detour from rationale, and their mind set will always represent a concerted, and choreographed effort to derail the best efforts of those who want to make this city a nicer place to live in, a nicer place to have a business in, a more attractive town, for those considering buying a home.

    It remains imperative to vote in candidates who will serve the legitimate interests of this city's residents. There is but one way to accomplish this goal, GET OUT THE VOTE, next primary, next election, and ALWAYS thereafter. Begin this task the moment after you read this comment, and know that it's never either too early, or too late to mobilize.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The person(s) seeking "more information" is(are) more culpable than the proprietor of the store.

    Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure they don't know what "culpable" means

      Delete
  4. Bernice,

    I wrote about Clinton Deli and Liquors last year on my council blog--the council was ready to RENEW the license of this menace to our society. It wasn't until I brought additional awareness of the owner and his daughter having been recently arrested for selling alcohol to a minor and selling DRUGS behind the counter, respectively, along with the public turning out to speak against giving them "another chance," that the council members who wanted them to continue to sell changed their votes. Drugs continue to be sold outside the store, as many constituents tell me. I will once again alert the public to come out and let their voices be heard.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  5. This establishment was a problem at Arlington Avenue and is now and continues to be a problem in its present location. HOW MUCH MORE INFORMATION DO THESE DUMB ASS COUNCIL PEOPLE NEED TO CLOSE THIS PLACE DOWN OR IS THE PAYOLLA TOO GOOD? PERHAPS THEY REQUIRE EITHER A PAYTRON OR A COP TO BE KILLED BEFORE THEY ACT. W HAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM PEOPLE WITH AN IQ OF 10!

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is wrong with these Council people? Who is paying them off? That place is a menace! And what's going on is an example of what's wrong with Plainfield. When will it stop?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I know Plainfielder's who went to Trenton to speak out against this license (they were not allowed to speak), just what is this council trying to protect? Drug sales, liquor to under age customers, non compliance to agreements (he did not do what he agreed to do - for clarification); what does it take??!!
    This IS NOT a council/Mapp, this is council/residence (people who live in Plainfield) situation. Don't tell me ass green is supporting this license!!
    HAVE A BLESSED DAY

    ReplyDelete
  8. Should we take bets as to how quickly the MORONS on the council (you know who you are) will approve his license renewal?? If this were in another town he would have been shut down at his last location. Being funny here... maybe if and when Dunkin Donuts opens next door there will be enough of a round the clock police presence to scare away the criminals and help clean up this neighborhood??? One can only hope.

    ReplyDelete