RIOC And Hudson Related Seeking To Close Roosevelt Island M&D Deli After 10 PM For Noise Complaints Outside Store - Why Not Better Policing Instead Asks Owner?
The Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) is seeking to force the M&D Deli
Image of M&D Deli and Surrounding Area
to reduce the hours that the M&D Deli is open at night so that they close by 10 PM. According to this August 16 letter from RIOC Public Safety Department Interim Director Jack McManus to Main Street Master Leaseholder Hudson Related's David Kramer (Landlord of M&D Deli):
Good Afternoon Mr. Kramer,In response to the letter from Mr. McManus, Lisa Management, on behalf of the landlord Hudson Related sent this September 16 letter informing M&D Deli that they would have to close during the hours of 10 PM to 5 AM.
I am Jack McManus, the Director of Public Safety for Roosevelt Island. I am writing to you today regarding the M&D delicatessen, located at 579 Main St, Roosevelt Island. For at least a year, M&D has been closing between I:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. I have been informed that they formerly closed at 10:00 P.M.
I have been in my present position for approximately two months. During that time I have been inundated with noise complaints from residents attributing the noise to the area in front of M&D. I have personally observed the crowd of younger people who gather in front of there nightly from around 9:00 P.M. on and have heard the noise which presumably results in complaints.
On July 4th, 2013 at approximately II :45 P.M., a shooting occurred in the street directly in front of the deli. There were at least 150 youths who were hanging out that night. I understand that there is a general belief on the island that these quality of life issues such as unreasonable noise, and littering in front of M&D, began to really fester after the deli began to remain open until I:00 A.M. or 2:00 A.M.
It would be to the benefit of the community if the deli were to revert to the 10 o' clock closing time. I would appreciate any assistance in this matter.
Yesterday, I asked Mr. McManus:
... 1- why the deli is being told to close at 10 PM and not any of the other stores on Roosevelt Island andand Mr. Kramer:
2- if there is a quality of life issue in the area around the M&D Deli after 10 PM why not have Public Safety Officers arrest or move along those making noise and other problems instead of forcing the M&D Deli owner to close at this time.
... any comment on why the deli is being told to close at 10 PM and not any of the other stores on Roosevelt Island. Will Gristedes,Riverwalk Bar & Grill or any of the other Roosevelt Island retail stores be required to close at the same time.Mr. McManus has not replied yet. Mr. Kramer replied:
We plan to sit down with M&D and RIOC to figure out how we can minimize the noise issues without competitively disadvantaging the deli.I followed up asking Mr. Kramer:
Does that mean you are withdrawing the letter requiring the Deli to close at 10 pm?Mr. Kramer resonded:
We often put down our concerns in writing to tenants, which leads to further conversations and resolution. I'm not sure we're there yet.I spoke with the M&D Deli owner last night. He told me that there is no problem with noise levels inside his stores and that noise coming from outside his store is not his responsibility but the responsibility of the Public Safety Department. The owner said that he has called Public Safety many times about people hanging out near his store at night but that Public Safety does nothing about it.
Upon learning of RIOC and Hudson Related's attempt to force the closure of the M&D Deli after 10 PM, Frank Farance sent the following messages to RIOC and Hudson Related:
I am appalled by PSD Director Jack McManus' letter to force the closing of M&D Deli. Mr. McManus' letter is factually incorrect and misleading. What seems obvious is that, because of the ongoing PSD Abuse, RIOC is retaliating against M&D Deli in light of:Mr. Farance continues:
(1) the M&D Deli Videos well-documented the kind of PSD Abuse and fabrication of testimony by PSD officers
(2) although the M&D Deli staff were helping PSD facilitate an arrest by keeping bystanders out of the arrest, PSD then turned around an abusively arrested the M&D Deli staff, including beating one of the workers with a baton (who was not resisting his erroneous arrest)
(3) these Deli Videos have captured the attention of the community, the media, and the authorities because they so clearly describe the kinds of PSD Abuse residents and merchants have had to suffer from PSD
The following is a rebuttal to several points in Mr. McManus' August 16, 2013 letter:
McManus> For at least a year, M&D has been closing between 1:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. I have been informed that they formerly closed at 10:00 P.M.
About a year ago, Hudson-Related took over the retail master and H-R encouraged merchants to be more responsive to community needs, one of those needs was to have later hours. Several merchants have responded.
McManus> I have been in my present position for approximately two months. During that time I have been inundated with noise complaints from residents attributing the noise to the area in front of M&D.
What Mr. McManus does not reveal is virtually all of the complaints are at times when M&D is already closed. Here are the Noise Complaints from the PSD blotter for over a year, since July 31, 2012:
09/21/13 - 0556 - F/O 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
09/17/13 - 0600 -579 Main St - Noise Complaint - Condition unfounded.
9/8/13 - 0522 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - Condition Corrected.
9/7/13 - 0454 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition Corrected.
9/7/13 - 0625 - F/O 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
9/4/13 - 0600 - F/O 579 Main St - Noise complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
9/4/13 - 0615 - F/O 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD & NYPD responded - Condition corrected.
9/1/13 - 0610 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - Condition corrected by PSD.
8/30/13 - 0210 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
8/26/13 - 0426 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - Condition corrected
0250 - 8/23/13 - f/o 579 Main St.- Noise Complaint - Condition corrected
8/22/13 - 0610 - 579 Main St. - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected
8/20/13 - 0545 - 579/580 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
08/13/13 - 0640 - 579 Main St. - Noise Complaint - PSD responded. Condition corrected.
08/06/13 - 0620 - F/O 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
8/3/13 - 0412 - 579 Main St - Noise complaint - PSD Responded - Condition Corrected.
8/2/13 - 0418 - 579 Main St. - Noise Complaint - Condition Corrected
07/31/13 - 0630 - 579 Main St. - Noise Complaint - PSD on scene. Condition corrected.
07/24/13 - 0635 - 579 Main St. - Noise Complaint - Condition corrected.
07/19/13 - 0155 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
7/12/13 - 0000 - 579 Main St. - Noise Complaint - Negative findings
7/6/13 - 0150 - 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - Condition Corrected
06/20/13 - 0405 - f/o 579 Main St - Noise Complaint - PSD responded - Condition corrected.
4/12/13 - 0045 - 579 Main St - Noise complaint - Condition corrected
Of the 352 Noise Complaints on Roosevelt Island since July 31, 2012, only 24 are associated with 579 Main Street, and of which 22 were founded. These complaints certainly involve noise OUTSIDE of M&D Deli while the store is CLOSED (4:30 AM to 6:30 AM).
Also, these complaints all seem to revolve around the past three months, presumably timed in response to M&D's staffers litigation against RIOC for PSD's abuse. Really, 23 complaints in the past three months, but only one complaint in the year prior? And with the exception of the April 12 and June 20 complaints, all of the complaints while the store was closed?
Furthermore, there was a hold-up at Gristede's (with guns), and there is constant noise from 2-4 River Road (across from Gristedes), but RIOC is not pressuring Gristedes to close. In RIOC's forcing M&D to close, but not take the same actions against other merchants in response to crime/noise, RIOC is putting M&D at a competitive disadvantage.
McManus> I understand that there is a general belief on the Island that these quality of life issues such as unreasonable noise, and littering in front of M&D, began to really fester after the deli began to remain open until 1:00 A.M. or 2:00 A.M.
The real problem with the noise and such is PSD's inability to address it properly: us residents have witnessed many times PSD officers standing on the 575 steps, while doing nothing about a racket 10 feet away outside the M&D Deli -- an ongoing complaint that PSD does little to address problems. Ditto for the noise/youth outside of 580 Main or 2-4 River Road.
The July 4 party started at Lighthouse Park (a mile away), PSD handled it poorly. After the break-up, the crowds moved south towards the subway and tram. There was a shooting, which happened to be in front of M&D Deli. There were also other problems elsewhere on the Island that night, such as neighbors reporting large, undispersed crowds on the East Promenade. But the problem was RIOC/PSD's allowing such a party to happen at Lighthouse Park, and PSD handled it poorly and ineffectively.
The same kind of noisy event happened the evening of August 10 at Al Lewis Park (across from 2-4 River Road), and the same noisy exit happened again, but this time the noise was in front of Trellis (which was closed), and by the 580 Main (Eastwood) Driveway.
These kinds of noise problems happen in regular areas on the Island, but the solution isn't to close the merchants (Gristede's, M&D, Trellis) or the residential buildings (2-4 River Road, 510 Main, 580 Main), the solution is for PSD to do a better job patrolling (or get assistance from NYPD). NYPD has had no problem clearing out noise problems. Recently, I've seen better work from PSD on clearing out noise, and I've complemented their better efforts.
In summary, (1) Mr. McManus' determination is arbitrary and capricious, (2) Mr. McManus' complaints are baseless (the M&D Deli was closed at the time of the complaints), (3) the complaints seem to be timed in retaliation to RIOC litigation (because of the lack of history of prior complaints during the past year), (4) the noise problems are caused by PSD's poor patrolling efforts.
I request that (1) RIOC withdraw its request for shorter hours for M&D Deli because it puts the merchant at a competitive disadvantage, (2) with RIOC's involvement in changing a merchant's sublease provisions via the master retail lease arrangement, RIOC should equally get involved in making recommendations to H-R when it suits the community's interest, not just when it suits RIOC's litigation interests, (3) the RIOC Board reprimand its attorneys for intimidation of witnesses (I will file a separate complaint with the NYS Bar Association), (4) Mr. McManus review the Deli Videos and PSD officers' fabrication of testimony such that Mr. McManus can get a better understanding of the history and the community's perspective on PSD (an E-mail I sent him on June 19 at 1:16 PM titled "Cliff Notes on community view, Jones incident facts, PSD fabrication of testimony, RIOC Board inaction").
RIOC Board Member Mike Shinozaki said that the Deli Videos would not stand in the way of M&D Deli getting a new lease. But even with the lease, RIOC can still intimidate merchants. This practice should stop immediately.
I have also confirmed with the owner, as was his prior position, that M&D Deli does not want the noise outside their store, but Public Safety has been unresponsive. The owner has stated that he has tried to talk to the people outside, with a Public Safety officer standing nearby, but the Public Safety officer would not offer assistance clearing the noise. The owner also reports that PSD would sit in their patrol cars and watch the noise in front of 579 Main but do nothing.(Video of the deli incident referenced by Mr. Farance is here).
The failure, obviously, is with Public Safety, both with Mr. Guerra's tenure, but also with Mr. McManus. If this were NYPD, an officer might ask a bodega owner: "There is noise outside your store and we [NYPD] would like to clear it out". If the bodega owner said "Sure, clear it out because it hurts my business, but I don't want you telling the people we asked for this because they will bother me inside my store" (a reasonable, responsible response), then the noise would be gone and NYPD would know that the store owner is cooperative.
But we don't have this here because of the tangled web of relationships with the State government being the landlord (or Overlord in the case of the master retail lease), and this Overlord is also responsible for law enforcement, and the merchants fearing that complaints about law enforcement translate into problems with lease renewals and RIOC permitting (an important worry).
So has the PSD Director had that kind bodega-owner's discussion and offered to help the merchant with the noise problem outside their store? No. It seems that RIOC isn't really interested in solving a noise problem, they seem to be more interested in pressuring a merchant whose employees have litigation against them for PSD Abuse.
Will update if RIOC responds.
UPDATE 5:30 PM - RIOC Public Safety Director McManus reports that all of the noise complaints referenced by Mr. Farance occurred during hours that the M&D Deli was open. Mr. McManus explained that the time stamps on the Incident Reports reflects when the reports were prepared by PSD and not when the noise incidents happened.
Mr. McManus also emphasized that he is not aware of a single report made by the Deli owner to Public Safety regarding problems outside of the deli.
17 comments :
YetAnotherRIer, if Public Safety is afraid to clear the noise, then why
should we have the expectation that a merchant can do better? I mentioned
your point (somehow the M&D Deli actually wanted the people hanging
out and dealing drugs) to the owner, and he laughed. If we were to take this outside the context of Roosevelt Island, a bodega has noise outside his store and we'd expect the bodega owner to have the nerve to address the noise without the help of law enforcement. And if the people outside the deli are as bad as you say, you really think it would be prudent to have the merchant take on law enforcement itself?
PSD Director McManus acknowledges PSD's false/misleading information, and has a ridiculous response.
According to the RI Blog: "UPDATE 5:30 PM - RIOC Public Safety Director McManus reports that all of the noise complaints referenced by Mr. Farance occurred during hours that the M&D Deli was open. Mr. McManus explained that the time stamps on the Incident Reports reflects when the reports were prepared by PSD and not when the noise incidents happened. Mr. McManus also emphasized that he is not aware of a single report made by the Deli owner to Public Safety regarding problems outside of the deli."
So RIOC/PSD is purposely providing incorrect time on its police blotter reports. Just google "police blotter" and you'll see that everyone provides the time of the incident, not the time of filing. Why provide such misleading, useless, and non-standard information? If you're going to provide a time, then provide the time of the incident. Why does it take 5-6 hours to write a report?
And why does it take a lay person to explain to law enforcement professionals that they should be accurate about their time, and report incidents on their blotter like other police departments. No one in PSD thought of that?
Now the next line is Laugh Out Aloud Funny: "Mr. McManus also emphasized that he is not aware of a single report made by the Deli owner to Public Safety regarding problems outside of the deli". Right, so PSD is aware of noise problems, but they need a call from the merchant to do something about it. Right, you're going to blame the merchant for their worry that their complaining causes potential lease/RIOC issues (as the McManus letter confirms their fears). If the merchant sees, as *everyone* on Roosevelt Island has seen: PSD is afraid to deal with the tougher kids, and PSD watches the noise outside their store, then why do you expect a merchant to give you a call, since it's clear that all the PSD officers aren't doing anything about it. Really, everyone knows PSD hasn't been up to the job of dealing with the rougher stuff (officers don't want to go out on patrol), PSD let's stuff fester (July 4, August 10) ... as witnessed first hand by the M&D Deli staff outside their store (and other merchants, too).
Mr. McManus makes a foolish executive management error: he blames the merchant for not calling him about his poor officers' performance, and the lack of the merchant's reporting rationalizes PSD inaction. Mr. McManus, that's lousy executive management: you shouldn't be showing us how out of touch you are with your staff and their performance, you should be looking to engage in further dialogue (which you're not).
Even if the times are during business hours, it still leaves Mr. McManus looking more interested in boosting the noise complaint reports than having a conversation with the merchant after, say, the 5th report (of 20+ reports).
And it ignores the main issue: it's PSD's responsibility (not the merchant's) for patrolling the public sidewalk.
This is silly. Require the Deli to close at 10. The noise will stop and the problem will be solved.
(1) You're argument that McManus' position is baseless as the complaints were after M&D was closed, is now baseless - we now know the reported time is inaccurate (a problem unto itself, but not the issue at hand). (2) You're taking each statement and exaggerating it - he didn't say they need a report from M&D to do anything, he simply said they haven't received a report. (3) you're consistently comparing PSD to NYPD, which makes sense, except that I've personally seen more than a few NYPD patrols roll right past the same group of people at M&D. (4) stating that M&D is at a competitive disadvantage by closing earlier suggesting there is somewhere else on the island to buy a bag of chips and pack of smokes at 1am - there is not. (5) these kids fight. The two deterrents to confrontation are personal harm and public backlash - you must understand that you are personally spear heading both. (6) you are acknowledging, along with several others on this blog, a marked improvement in PSD performance sine McManus took over, then is the same breadth blaming him for lingering problems - These people are here to cause trouble and they're comfortable. If we respond this way to every effort to improve the community, we are handing it over to them. McManus' request may not be a good one, but it should be up for discussion on it's own merit, not compared to July 4th, etc.
I agree, except for the "require" part. The deli should be willing to accommodate the community. McManus brought it to the table, anyone with a strong enough opinion should let the deli know.
OldRossie, if you carefully read the McManus letter, it is he who raised July 4, accusing M&D Deli to be a contributing factor to the shooting. By giving the bigger picture, we can see what's wrong with his argument (and Mr. McManus should know better).
McManus' complaints are still baseless because: (1) M&D doesn't have the legal authority to force people to move on the public sidewalk, (2) M&D doesn't want the people there (hurts business) but they need the help of law enforcement and PSD officers on the scene don't help and just watch, (3) law enforcement is PSD's problem, not the merchant's problem. I think you'll find merchants feel pretty strongly that noise/etc. outside their store is for law enforcement to solve.
According to you, if kids fight, we should be closing down the store that they fight in front of. Ridiculous.
You say "you're consistently comparing PSD to NYPD, which makes sense, except
that I've personally seen more than a few NYPD patrols roll right past the same group of people at M&D". Why not talk to NYPD officers, the local patrolling (they believe) is done by PSD. From their point of view (which I believe is the perspective of their commanding officer): Roosevelt Island has all this extra staff, PSD should be taking care of regular stuff in their backyard rather than taking an NYPD officer out of service (who could be handling other things in their precinct). This is why NYPD is really upset with the PSD slowdown earlier this year: taking officers off the street to handle stuff that PSD would normally handle.
You misunderstand the competitive nature of things, being open later means more income for them, i.e., other merchants aren't having their store hours and income reduced.
You say "you are acknowledging, along with several others on this blog, a marked
improvement in PSD performance sine McManus took over, then is the same
breadth blaming him for lingering problems". Well yes, that's true: (1) there are some things that are better, (2) there are some lingering problems, and (3) there is some stuff that is worse with McManus (such as the targeting of a merchant, which stinks of RIOC's real estate/legal issues, when the problem is really a PSD issue).
I Calls 'Em As I Sees 'Em. Still happy to point out both the good and bad.
Fair points. So let me summarize where I think you're going: PSD is attacking M&D because (a) M&D employees are taking legal action against PSD, and (b) RIOC's interest in profiting from the real estate. As you say above, you want NYPD to step in and ASK the bodega owner for permission to take action (even though you maintain the bodega owner has no authority or responsibility). Additionally, you want the bodega owner to continue to profit from sales to these same people at all hours of the night, having no communal responsibility.
Unless I'm wrong the young men and women that I see outside the Deli are sitting on the Island House entrance steps. Unless this noise has a direct connection to the Deli, for example, the selling of alcoholic beverages to underage youth, one could blame Island House for not restricting their steps to those entering or leaving the building. It seems if the youth are on Island House property, then they could call PSD. However, it is also apparent that the "condition corrected" part of the report is not a lasting correction.
OldRossie, so you want Woolworths employees deciding who they serve at lunch counters, based upon "communal responsibility", which might correlate to their skin being black or white, right? We don't allow merchants to discriminate on who they provide product/service to, whether the patrons have "communal responsibility" or not. According to you, a gas station owner in some crime-ridden area would "continue to profits form sales to these same people at all hours of the night, having no communal responsibility" and, thus, we should penalize that gas station owner.
As for RIOC's interests, they have a variety of interests, including legal, financial, and real estate. But it's clear it wasn't about looking to resolve noise problems, it was about documenting a problem to escalate to H-R. I also point out that RIOC/H-R has several other merchant issues in play.
You have misread my other point: "you want NYPD to step in and ASK the bodega owner for permission to take
action (even though you maintain the bodega owner has no authority or
responsibility)". There is no such requirement, they can just clear the noise problem themselves. Considering PSD didn't speak with M&D, they never got to find out that M&D didn't want the noise, and that M&D would welcome PSD's help clearing it out.
Why are we discussing discrimination? Where do you get discrimination from a store's hours of operation being decided in conjunction with the concerns of the community? This is the sort of exaggeration that's exhausting in these discussions.
Thanks for clarifying on the reason authorities would discuss with M&D, I did misunderstand - there's seems to be a lot in this situation that can be loosely interpreted.
So I'll amend my summary - important because we should know (or at least, to satisfy my own curiosity) what you want to effect with the letters of complaint: PSD is attacking M&D because (a) M&D employees are taking legal action against PSD, and (b) RIOC has financial and real estate interests that supersede a businesses right to operate.
The position of the bodega, then, is really a meaningless distraction. But you would say they should be able to conduct their business how and when they chose - it doesn't matter what the community wants, just whenever they can make a profit.
I'm sure Frank, since you are into policing and know the inner workings of the nypd well. You should also know that the city and nypd routinely shut down stores, clubs, bars, and social clubs which have a direct nexus to the disruption of public safety and quality of life.
So yes.. if an establishment is nexused to the establishment they can be SHUT DOWN with the nypd rules.
Part of law enforcement is collecting accurate statistical information. Then, progress (or lack of it) can be tracked. It seems that PSD does not keep accurate records if the time of incidents is not recorded somewhere within the incident reports that are released to the public in the form of the blotter report, but only the time that an incident report was filed.
We need transparency and accuracy from the PSD, a department of an agency that is covered by State transparency rules. The fact that all the blotter reports are not accurate in that the actual time of incidents is not reported somewhere within the report, violates the State requirement for transparency and accuracy.
McManus says that the noise incidents occurred and complaints received by PSD when the deli was open but this is not reflected in the blotter reports. The blotter reports, being inaccurate, are therefore useless for statistical purposes. Why is the public being misled with inaccurate blotter reports? Inaccuracy and lack of transparency in these important reports violates State transparency law.
We only have it on McManus' word that the incidents/complaints occurred during business hours. The paper trail that would validate McManus' claim that the incidents/complaints occurred during the deli's business hours should be released by RIOC-PSD in conformance with State transparency rules.
McManus, Indelicato, and the salaries of all RIOC employees are paid for out of our taxpayer money. We have a right to see everything that is going on in State agencies, how records are being kept, and so forth. It is unacceptable and in violation of State law mandating transparency/accuracy, that records of complaints are being released to the public that are inaccurate or misleading.
It is these sorts of systemic problems with PSD that the Audit, which was paid for with even more taxpayer money, was supposed to have addressed. The PSD Audit was completed in July. It is now September, yet we still have persistent problems with inaccuracy/lack of transparency/possible fabrication of complaints (to suit RIOC's purposes) etc etc. We currently don't know what to believe: The blotter reports or McManus.
If McManus is correct, then can he back it up with an audit/paper trail proving what he says? Or do we just have to take it "on faith" that all the noise complaints occurred when the deli was open for business? What kind of statistically meaningful information is that, Mr. McManus? Your saying all the noise complaints occurred "when the store was open" but not supplying a shred of proof - doesn't cut it statistically. It's almost like hearsay evidence, which, as we know, is not acceptable in court. It also violates the State law requiring transparency/accuracy.
All we need next is an outright cover-up of an embarrassing/illegal PSD action, such as Guerra attempted with the Jones case, to complete the impression that indeed not much has changed regarding law enforcement and community relations on RI since the arrival of Indelicato and McManus.
For once, I agree with the importance of that record. I'm not sure it matters much in this situation (I'd argue that it shouldn't affect the rational behind his letter or the response from M&D, though that's just my opinion), but it's certainly something that should be on the list of things that need to be fixed within PSD. And it is surprising it wasn't a cause for concern when they were audited.
But not all are shut down. Those that seem to be favored are permitted to stay open.
When was the last time a noisy bar was shut down in the Village? The Village is a residential neighborhood that contains many noisy bars - yet you don't see NYPD shutting them down, despite the complaints.
That's because NYU students frequent these establishments plus the area is a known tourist destination. NYC Inc. wouldn't want to interfere with the carefully promoted image of NYC as a fleshpot/mecca of all sorts of activities that may not be available in more straight-laced areas around the nation or the world.
I refer you also to Williamsburg, where hundreds of white, upscale youth throng the streets, and there are bars/restaurants within the residential area serving the trustafarian partiers at all hours. When was the last time the police shut down a noisy establishment in Williamsburg? I wonder if the NYPD would be so quick to throw out the owners of million dollar + condos from the drinking establishments they favor, as they are to shut down a downmarket bodega.
When it's good for business in general to permit noise, the City permits it, that is, when the revelers are well-heeled hipsters or tourists or possible eventual condo-buyers out for a good time. When it's bad for business - if the revelers are the "wrong" color, don't seem to have much money, or "class" - then the City clamps down, as with the discriminatory un-Constitutional stop and frisk effort.
Here we go... the racial/class warfare from CheshireKitty... when was the last time? Studio B, Greenpoint, noise; Max Fish, lower east side, noise/crowds; Coco66, greenpoint, noise... I don't even know there places, just 5 minutes of research....
I think you need a better angle because I was personally in an enforcement unit which dealt with these situations and I HAVE PERSONALLY PUT THE PADLOCK AND SHUT DOWN DOZENS of nuisance businesses WITHIN the WEST VILLAGE. So lets not go there and say its preferential treatment because its not.
Some of these places were upper class but they caused a neighborhood disturbance, either with a nexus to violence, fighting, noise, alcohol state liquor authority violations, whatever it was. The businesses were afforded opportunities to remedy their problems, if they did not I went to their location with a legal team of nypd lawyers and padlocked it.
They needed permission from a judge and the nypd to open back up.
Rossie, read above. The nypd does these things frequently and oftenly.
Post a Comment