Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Council Sets Hearings, Will Counter CNN Story

Six liquor license holders will face hearings at a July 5 special meeting over conditions at their establishments that have caused frequent police response.

The annual license renewal process included City Council approvals Monday for four social clubs, 10 bars and restaurants and 11 liquor stores, although some still need sign-offs by the Fire or Inspections divisions before the licenses will be turned over to owners. The council took no action on another six that have yet to satisfy state tax requirements.

Councilman William Reid repeated his view that liquor establishments with high police response should pay the cost or be required to hire off-duty police as a deterrent to crime on the premises. The city has an excess of liquor establishments, as many were “grandfathered” in when the state set a formula for the number of such venues based on population. In 2005, the city had more than double the allowable number of liquor stores under the new formula.

In other matters, the council approved a resolution ordering a study of the Elmwood Gardens block to determine whether redevelopment is needed. As he did last Tuesday, Executive Director Randall Wood stressed the fact that only an investigation and public hearing were up for approval and any future action will require separate council endorsement.

Plaintalker will report later on other council matters.

In public comment, resident Jeanette Criscione expressed extreme disgust for a CNN segment that portrayed the city as a crime-ridden place where half the city work force had allegedly been fired and one in 10 homes was in foreclosure. Criscione questioned who provided the information on which the show’s assumptions were based and called for a strong response from the governing body to the show’s producers and on-air personality. Other speakers expressed similar dismay and said they had received phone calls from around the country from friends and relatives who were shocked at the negative portrayal of Plainfield. The council agreed to send a letter to CNN in response.

--Bernice

11 comments:

  1. Wake up Jeanette
    Plainfield is a crime-ridden city

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who will write the letter to Sharon Robinson-Briggs admonishing her for failing to correct CNN's on-air personality - Or, perhaps SRB was the on air personality?

    ReplyDelete
  3. To 9:26am - I am awake, and no it is not. It is a city. It has it's problems in an area of Plainfield. I am sure I am not the only one who feels that the term "crime-ridden city" does not accurately portray the nature of the city. That statement is a disservice to the many people in Plainfield who are involved in their community and dedicated to keeping their neighborhoods safe.

    Are you saying we are crime-ridden because of what you hear about Plainfield, or rather, what you do NOT hear about other towns and cities, thereby drawing your conclusion? Please make sure you understand that I am saying that there are areas that are not safe - some areas, not ALL areas.

    Jeanette

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with you Jeanette! I hope this is a wake up call for the mayor. She needs to do something to gentrify the downtown area. That is the first thing anyone sees when they come to Plainfield. What is stopping her? Does she not want this town to flourish?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'VE LIVED IN PLAINFIELD FOR FOUR YEARS AND I CAN'T THINK OF ONE THING THAT THE MAYOR HAS DONE TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC BASE OF THIS CITY.
    FIRST THE HOSPITAL CLOSED,THEN THEIR HAS BEEN MAJOR LAY OFF'S OF CITY WORKERS. CRIME HAS GOTTEN WORST AND THE HOUSING SITUATION MAY BE AT IT'S ALL TIME LOW. WERE ARE THE TASK FORCES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOMENT AND HOUING. AND WHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY CONTINUE TO REELECT THE MAYOR AND GREEN BACK INTO OFFICE TO LEAD US NOWHERE.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Our foreclosure problem has some relation to the issue of Elmwood Gardens. Getting rid of public housing would be the best way of reducing our crime rate. This raises a host of policy issues, therefore, when the Planning Board looks at our options for that property, people really should chime in and be heard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah the problem areas are from Rock ave to Terrill road and from Front street to the border line of South Plainfield and Scotch Plains
    WaKe Up Jeanette

    ReplyDelete
  8. Read through the History of the Friend's Meeting House [it used to be online] and see the great effort they put into Prohibition. Oh many people laugh at it now, but come to think of it Ocean City is still "Dry" and they do not have the problem of calls to bars. Other problems maybe, but atleast one less. [No amount of tax money can pay for the pain of the scurge of Liquor in this town]

    ReplyDelete
  9. These liquor stores, especially those who were grandfather, should be gradually faded out of our community. Why is the council approving so many licenses when the right thing is to deny them these them. Specially, those near by schools. There are two liquor stores close to
    Maxson Middle School. In fact, it seems there's always a police car parked just across one of these stores. (E. 2nd Street). So, why is it so hard to say no to these stores. There's a reason why these stores have to go through the process, it's not that hard to say no... It is time to step up and use common sense. The way I see it this city will not be progressing to a better community in the direction it is heading.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The city has its share of problems but most of them stem from an inept administration and over 20 years of public officials who do nothing more than line their pockets. Let's face it, Plainfield will never reach its full potential when we have the likes of Briggs, PMUA, and a sub par public safety director. It's time that we wake up and demand accountability of our elected officials.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not a plainfield native, but what i've noticed and have heard from SOME life long plainfield residents, people are voted in to these offices/positions, not because of their ability to do, but because of WHO they know, who they went to school with or who their children went to school with....clearly NOT good reasons to vote for someone.

    ReplyDelete