Open in App
  • Local
  • U.S.
  • Election
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle
  • Education
  • Real Estate
  • Newsletter
  • TAPinto.net

    Plainfield Residents Express Fear of Return of 4am Bar Closing Ordinance

    By David Rutherford,

    16 days ago

    https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3oJY8E_0t5cA2fx00

    Sebastian Torres speaks at Monday's Plainfield City Council meeting

    Credits: PCTV

    PLAINFIELD, NJ — At Monday's Plainfield City Council meeting, the controversial ordinance that would allow bar to close later—as late as 4am on Saturdays—was pulled by the administration, a move that was greeted with applause in Municipal Court.

    That didn't stop residents from voicing concerns about a potential return of said ordinance during the public comment portion.

    CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE FREE TAPINTO.NET NEWSLETTER

    "I am happy that the bars being open until 4am was tabled indefinitely, but I also hope to see it tabled permanently," said resident Krisja Lorenson, adding that Plainfield should be rehabilitating its reputation instead of making it worse. "I know that Seaside Heights is open until 4am, and they're working really hard now to undo all the damage that's been done."

    Krisja Lorenson worried that Plainfield might become a "Mecca for drunk drivers in the area" and claimed that there isn't adequate public transportation to get people home safely.

    Resident Sebastian Torres related alcohol-related accidents to drowning and gun violence, both of which were recognized earlier at the council meeting.

    "I couldn't help but think that alcohol-related deaths and injuries are just as terrible as those issues," said Torres.

    DOWNLOAD THE FREE TAPINTO APP FOR MORE LOCAL NEWS. AVAILABLE IN THE APPLE STORE AND THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE .

    Torres shared the story of a friend who was killed by a drunk driver outside the White Star on West Front Street in November 2015.

    "The lawyer was able to obtain security footage that showed this drunk driver had been at two different locations," said Torres, who did not name the bars. "There were two locations here in Plainfield, and the man showed signs of inebriation at those two locations, and he was still being served."

    "I understand there are economic interests involved in all of this, but I believe that the safety of the public should take precedent over the economic interests of whatever businesses, which, like I mentioned, sometimes are involved in behaviors that are just not conducive to a good living environment," concluded Torres.

    Resident Wilma Campbell said she hopes the ordinance never comes back to the council.

    "The bottom line is vehicular accidents occur when we have people drunk driving. This bar being opened until 4am in the morning encourages the kind of violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, that we don't need in this city," said Campbell.

    "This is mental health month. To even consider having an ordinance like that this month is just not the right time. So again, I reiterate, let indefinite mean no time soon. Never would be even better," she concluded.

    Plainfield Board of Education commissioner Sarah Virgo also expressed concern over the language of "indefinitely" versus "permanently."

    "I understand the argument that extending bar hours may bring in additional revenue for our city but ordinances like these are presented," said Virgo. "But before they're presented we need to conduct extensive assessments to ensure that we can handle this and our city benefits."

    Virgo said that in some places across the country, there are significant fees for establishments that take advantage of being open later, and that they are required to monitor consumption and have enhanced security.

    "I'm not in favor of this whatsoever in a city like Plainfield," said Virgo. "But if we are going to consider it now or in the future we have to really consider all aspects of this issue from a pragmatic perspective to protect Plainfield."

    Former Councilman John Campbell thanked Councilors Sessomes and Cherry for being the only "no" votes on the ordinance on first reading.

    "I want you to know that I hope that you're not planning on hoodwinking the public and bringing this ordinance back in July," said Campbell, who asked if the ordinance would have to be read on first reading again or if it would go straight to second reading and final passage.

    No residents, nor anyone on the council or in the administration, spoke in favor of the ordinance, though Business Administrator Abby Levenson gave her rationale at the April meeting .

    For more local news, visit TAPinto.net

    Expand All
    Comments / 0
    Add a Comment
    YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
    Most Popular newsMost Popular

    Comments / 0