$.99 Store on Clayton Rd. Files Appeal After City of Concord Denies Request to Sell Alcohol

April 22, 2014 9:00 am · 79 comments


In February of this year, the $.99 store on Clayton Rd. in Concord (at Bailey Rd.) applied for a permit to sell alcohol (beer & wine), but the City of Concord’s Zoning Administrator denied the request. So, the owners have filed a motion to appeal the decision.

According to the Concord City Council’s staff report, the Zoning Administrator determined that the issuance of a liquor license to sell beer and wine in this location would result in a public nuisance or otherwise result in an adverse impact on the public’s health, safety, or welfare because of the saturation of the immediate vicinity of the site with alcohol licenses.

There are 11 off-sale alcohol licenses and 25 businesses selling alcohol on and off their properties in the immediate census tracts in the surrounding project area. Further, according to research completed by the Concord Police Department, the neighborhood already has a high incidence of alcohol-related crimes and the granting of the permit could result in a potential increase in alcohol related crimes and loitering.

The owners of the $.99 store say that the crimes rates that were reported by the Police Department to the Alcohol & Beverage Control indicated that the crime reporting district is actually below the average for the City of Concord, yet the Police Department report to the Zoning Administrator did not reveal that the site is located in a crime reporting district that is below the City of Concord average.

Concord Police responded with the crime numbers for the neighborhood over the past 90-days (shown below in the image):


The City of Concord will hear the appeal at tonight’s City Council meeting. They are expected to deny the appeal based on the information provided.

QUESTION: If you were the City of Concord, would you deny or approve the request to sell alcohol at the $.99 store?

Me April 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM

What kind of alcohol can they sell for 99 cents? Those cute mini bottles? I don’t go there very often. When I do there always seems to be homeless looking or half drunk looking people sitting outside the door. Sure they’d make a ton of money off the random alcoholic who has begged a buck off someone but its obviously just not a good idea. A no brainer.

Justin April 22, 2014 at 9:08 AM

If 7-11 and others can, I don’t see why not.

My only condition would be not allowing the use of EBT or food stamps/etc to purchase the alcohol.

Shelly April 22, 2014 at 9:10 AM

I really don’t see the need for distribution of any more cheap swill along Clayton Road. Don’t we have enough problems yet? That would sure keep me out of that store. I actually do shop there, along with my husband, a recovering alcoholic. Way to ruin a good thing, 99.99¢ store!

NoMoreFreeRide April 22, 2014 at 9:10 AM


FRANCIS BARKER April 22, 2014 at 9:17 AM

I don’t see anything wrong selling Beer or wine at a .99 cent store!!

Problem Solved April 22, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Prohibit the sale of alcohol in the entire town. Problem solved.
Next cigarettes. Problem solved.
Then guns. Problem solved.
Next vehicles that pollute. Problem solved.
Then farm animals that fart. Problem solved.
What a great place Concord will then be.

Anon April 22, 2014 at 9:27 AM

Definitely deny it. No good will come to this area by selling cheap alcohol.

bumper morgan April 22, 2014 at 9:27 AM

deny it. they’ll only sell classic whino bevages, such as fortified wine, ripple, wild irish rose, mad dog 20/20, and the always classic 211 malt liquor, Ole English 800, King Kobra, etc etc etc….

LOL April 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I would deny them because I would not want to drink $0.99 alcohol. What could you get from that?! Hella nasty yo

BagsFlyFree April 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM

City Council.. Stand your ground! You, me, and the rest of Claycord knows this corridor is not where we need a saturation of easy to grab cheap, sweet alcohol.

If these low margin businesses that cater to selling imported junk and secondary market goods can’t float it without selling alcohol, let them close.

BFF Out!

Blink April 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Yes…in the poorest neighbor hoods there are the highest concentration of alcohol sales

We live in Concord but are visually reminded of substance abuse
Why make it easier

Anon April 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM

“I would deny them because I would not want to drink $0.99 alcohol.”

OH..its all about you ??
go home

anon April 22, 2014 at 9:48 AM

What next 99 cents pot ?

Mark April 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM

I couldn’t care less one way or the other.

I’ve learned to focus on things I can control. I control where I shop, and I don’t shop there.

Sell what you want. Isn’t that what business is all about? Within reason anyway.

Bad Idea April 22, 2014 at 9:51 AM

That’s the TJMaxx shopping center. There’s already a problem with homeless people hanging out there. The homeless regularly use Bailey Rd to go from Clayton Rd to the creek or overpass they plan to sleep at. They walk along there shouting to themselves or ride their bikes while holding garbage bags full of stuff. It’s a miracle more of the bike riders don’t get hit by a car because a lot of them appear to be DUI, wandering all over the road. If you walk along there you’ll see discarded airline-sized little bottles of alcohol.

NO! The 99 cent store should not sell alcohol. There are plenty of places that sell alcohol near there. It would only harm the businesses in that shopping center and make the homeless problem in that area worse.

When we... April 22, 2014 at 9:54 AM

all know its about “anon”, all of them !
Yes, if they go under selling the junk they do
now, so be it. DENY!

Cuzzzzzzzzzzzzz April 22, 2014 at 9:55 AM

@ BFF #11 – the council caved in to the new owner of the Shell/Circle K on Treat and Oak Grove. This owner can take that to court and claim race discriminaition etc……..And here is the best part…………Good ol’ Kumar was supporting the owner of the Shell/Circle K bid to sell alcohol and the city granted the permit!!!!!!!! Yep he gets in front the council and talks about mental illness and substance abuse etc and yet supported his friends petition to sell alcohol. Yes the same Kumar that runs for council all the time.

Domestic CEO April 22, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Deny! We don’t need more drunk alcoholics hanging out at that place. It is already gross as it stands today. Stand FIRM City Council!

Say No! April 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM

That’s the TJMaxx shopping center. It already has a problem with homeless people. Selling liquor there will hurt the other businesses there by attracting more homeless. The homeless populate that section of Clayton Rd and they walk and ride their bikes on that section of Bailey Rd because they sleep in the creek bed near there. There are plenty of places to buy alcohol near there. Say NO to the 99 cents store.

waverunner April 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM

I absolutely agree with the denial. This is the area where all of the homeless congregate and 7-11 is down the street and is another gathering spot. They do not need another place to buy cheap booze. There is a large contingent of elders that shop at the store because it is within walking distance from their residences. It could be a lil’ intimidating for them to possibly be approached for money by the homeless people.

If the citizens of Concord want the homeless issue addressed, this is a good place to start by denying this permit.

Just Some Guy April 22, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Deny. Plenty of other places to get alcohol. No need for more.

J. April 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM

They’ll sell it at $0.99 for a single-can

Carry on April 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM

It’s a Free Country – Free Enterprise. Sell what you want. Folks can shop anywhere they want.

vindex April 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

I agree with the zoning administrator. This would be a bad move for the Public.

twilight April 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Let’s fight shoplifting by providing 99-cent alcohol. (What??)

huh? April 22, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Deny!!!!! there are too many places now!

Theresa April 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM

There must be a new group on Claycord…because usually comments border on “get government out of our lives,” The majority of you are now saying “let’s have the govenment deny this.” Interesting, very interesting.

Michelle April 22, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Good business proposal…bad for the public. Especially since it’s central to the high schools and middle schools in the area.

Cynthia April 22, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Deny! With the homeless situation, you give them alcohol @ .99. NO Thanks!

Wentworth April 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Crime averages lower? Let’s keep those averages up folks.

Mark April 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Even though I don’t shop there, I’ve heard they sell fruits and vegetables.
Only the shoppers know if it’s true.

If you can buy fruits and vegetables for 99 cents, it sounds like a pretty good deal.

The elderly on a fixed income, the unemployed, low income, people looking for a good deal regardless of financial situation, etc.

I understand why people shop there. It’s not just the poor and the cheap.

buzzed April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

I can’t wait for them to start selling liquor. (hic…) I hope they have my MD50/50 in stock.

Me April 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Ah, and now there’s the newest post talking once again about a Popeye’s and Arco with AM/PM. Just keepin’ it classy ain’t they? I’m sure AM/PM will be selling alcohol as well and its not that far down the road. So for all the worried alcoholics, no fear, there are a plethora of cheap alcohol options.

mutts April 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Deny. Its a done deal, I’m sure. Just like Chevrons request to sell booze,protesting didn’t work

firgirl April 22, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Sure invite more homeless and drunks to the neighborhood . They might need and after dinner drink from their fine fast food meal at Popeyes!

Vandy April 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Other businesses sell alcohol in Concord. It seems fair that 99c be allowed to do so lawfully. The presumption that “people are going to drink and maybe do illegal things” is no argument against the legal sale of alcohol.

Cowellian April 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM

I don’t shop at the 99¢ stores, but I don’t think the liquor sales would create any more of a problem for the area.

I’m just happy that Tennessee is finally going to allow wine sales in grocery stores. It won’t happen until July 2016, but we may actually get some Two-Buck Chuck around here.

waverunner April 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Cowellian, you obviously do not know about the problems in the area of the store and have never seen the drunks laying out on the grass around 7-11 and the TJMaxx shopping center. You obviously don’t know about them running across Clayton Road at night and getting killed because they were drunk. None of the 99c stores needs to sell liquor.

No offense, but I think you were sheltered from all of this before you moved to TN.

Silva April 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Not everything they sell costs 99¢. They sell gallons of milk for more. They could be planning to charge more for whatever beer/wine/swill than 99¢, but I think the idea really needs to be nixed.

anon April 22, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Shoplifting beer and wine will be a problem, and can’t see the workers there stopping anybody for 99 cents and getting hurt.

Cielos April 22, 2014 at 12:45 PM

You guys are a bunch of drama queens. 90% of you probably don’t even shop there or in that area but just wanna put your worthless 2 cents in about homeless people and alcoholics. Grow up.

The Realist April 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM

The more important issue here is another wave of BS coming from city hall.
More made up numbers. So what is it Concord? Is crime going down or is it increasing?

Concord Mike April 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM


Good government is supposed to do its best for the “common good” within the constraints of the law. In this case, another business selling cheap booze is NOT in the common good .

BagsFlyFree April 22, 2014 at 12:57 PM

@ Cuzzzzzzzzzzz #18 Good find about Kumar pushing for LQ sales in that Shell station. I’d compare the two locations (Bailey, Clayton & Oak Grove Treat) and say that the Treat Oak Grove location is a less liquor saturated area with less vagrants poaching/camping. Shell might be trying to one up the Chevron on the other corner to push sales (idk).

As for Kumar pushing for this addition to that property, cash must have had some influence for his recommendation… Like they say, “follow the money.”

BFF Out!

Cowellian April 22, 2014 at 1:03 PM

The reason that I never hit a drunk on Clayton Road has more to do with my dislike of ugly hood ornaments than their concern for their own safety.

Anon April 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Plain and simple, NO

RunDogRun April 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM

A newly developed product
called ‘palcohol” is a powdered
alcohol product that comes
in flavors (like marguerita) which
becomes an alcoholic drink
when mixed with water. It
doesn’t require a bottle and
could be packaged in single
serving portions, possibly at
99 cents each.

Obviously, Claycord is not
addressing its homelessness
problem since it looks like it
is getting worse, exponentially.
Whatever the City Councils are
doing, if anything, it isn’t
helping. And don’t tell me the
churches are taking care of it.
They can’t possibly provide the
comprehensive services needed
by the homeless. Programs for
the homeless need the resources
provided and coordinated by state
and federal government entities and
how they ever stepped away from
their responsibilities in this matter
is beyond me. That anyone
is homeless in this wealthy country
is a disgrace and shows the world
how weakened we are as a nation.
It reflects on our morality as a
people and can only make us
callous to human suffering.

Revere April 22, 2014 at 1:46 PM

I didn’t know Concord was waging a war on the lower class! Not every can afford to shop at fancy Lucky’s or BevMo.

AngelB April 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM

“Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction.”
Bob Marley

waverunner April 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Cielos, I would venture that YOU are the one who has never shopped in the center and observed the type of people who frequent it – – – -OR – – – maybe you ARE one of those people that we see all the time.

jtkatec April 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

#18 & #46, didn’t know that about this past City Council candidate. Hmmm.

Cuzzzzzzzzzzzzz April 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM

RunDogRun – the cpunty pumps about $8M in state, federal and other grant funds into programs for the Homeless. They have 2 adult shelters, one in Concord and another in Richmond along with a Respite Center in Concord. There are out reach teams, the multi-service center on Detroit (down by the produce market), a transitional center on Pacheco Blvd on the outter portion of Martinez (past the tressel where Discovery House yuse to be) transitional apartments in PH, Concord and Richmond and other lesser services.

The main problem with homeless are those within the homeless population that don’t want to follow societies rules. In other words go thru treatment to become clean and sober and stay that way. Ypu can lead people to treatment but you can’t make it stick. It is up to the individual to make it work, not their family, not society but the individual

Cuzzzzzzzzzzzzz April 22, 2014 at 2:10 PM

jtkatec – dig thru the archieves of council meeting and find the one with the appeal………and watch the video.

Blink April 22, 2014 at 2:15 PM

By the number of shopping carts that belong to that store you see all over concord …tells you something about them

Antler April 22, 2014 at 2:20 PM


mutts April 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Anyway, they have to deny it before they can approve it!

hmmmmmmmmmmm April 22, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Potentially another place to get booze — Not exactly what we need.

@jtkatec April 22, 2014 at 2:53 PM

don’t get mislead, the whole city council voted yes on it. And it was so new gas station could compete with other one. It was one planning commissioner…Hoag, (religous issues) that didn’t want it, so council ok’d appeal. Was the right thing to do for the business. And yes, it’s Kumor’s friend, who is a pretty good business owner in Concord.

@jtkatec April 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM

I would vote no this permit. That store has really done a great job of improving the store…it’s a nice one and heavily used but there afre homeless drink near there. Remember just being homeless is not against the law but drinking in public is….call it in people.

anon April 22, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Is this the first .99 cents store to apply?

Run Dog Run April 22, 2014 at 4:48 PM

@ Cuzzzzzzzzzzzzz Please tell me why
they have to conform to someone else’s
arbritrary standard of behavior, i.e., “go
thru treatment to become clean and sober.”
You contradict yourself by saying they
won’t go to treatment but it’s up to the
individual. If it is up to the individual,
the individual will do it by themselves. This
whole “treatment” stuff is just substituting
one crutch for another. I believe that
anyone who is homeless can be excused
for their use of alcohol and drugs because
their situation is so dire. As their situation
improves, their need for drugs and alcohol
will improve, also. And, even if it doesn’t,
they should not be forced by others to live
on the street. There should not be conditions
placed on their receipt of services. It is obvious
that the current thinking in the treatment
of homeless individuals isn’t working. Who
devised it? Some university public policy
theorist? Some government bureaucrat who
lives in a ritzy Washington suburb? Who says
they have to go thru “treatment?” Maybe we’re
the ones who need treatment. Compassion

iluvfriedchicken April 22, 2014 at 4:56 PM

I don’t see how this license affects crime one way or the other. There are plenty of shops that sell alcohol. One more won’t make a difference.

common sense April 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Way to go City Personnel – I think the Liquor Store, Fresh and Easy and CVS along with Guads, Bronze B, Wing Stop, Round Table, Bella and Tachi are enough places to get booze in one center.

Casey April 22, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Absolutely deny.

RunDogRun April 22, 2014 at 5:19 PM

@ Cuzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, stupid me!
The homeless are just the pawns in
the game. The true goal is to not to
help the homeless. It’s to keep $8M
worth of people who help the home-
less (including people who provide
“treatment”) from becoming homeless

Atticus Thraxx April 22, 2014 at 5:34 PM

I agree on the whole it seems a bad idea, but if the City is fudging numbers or the interpretation of numbers to makes their case, that’s a big time concern.

waverunner April 22, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Common Sense – what shopping center are you talking about and iluvfriedchicken, YES, one more place to sell liquor COULD make a difference.

Cuzzzzzzz...... April 22, 2014 at 9:42 PM

RunDogRun – do you know how read. What I said is there IS help for those that want it. Why should tax payers or society pay for those that wish to continue to be substance abusers???? In reality society owe nobody anything. The only one that owes people something is themselves. The only person that makes a person drink or use drugs are the persons themselves. Nobody force them to do it.
As for 99 Cents Only selling alcohol………………there are enough places that sell. Does Concord really need more liquor selling establishments? Soon it will be like Oakland in the fact that businesses that sell alcohol out number any other type of business in the city

ChampagneKitty April 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Concord council meeting has just ended; the council voted to uphold the denial of the appeal.

Rub Dog Run April 22, 2014 at 10:57 PM

71Cuzzzzzzz Do you know how
to spell? You’re part of the problem.
If you’re a transplant it’s time for
you to leave. Buhbye!

Jess April 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM

ChampagneKitty, thanks for the update.

right April 23, 2014 at 3:11 AM

Allegedly pot is being sold all over this area (even some buy home delivery)?
Why should alcohol be any different?
That is the true discrimination tax paying businesses sell alcohol and your local pot dealers are not inclined to report cash sales of federally illegal substances.
Yet, people still blame the tax paying alcohol selling businesses for society substance abuse problems. And these tax paying businesses at least pay into diversion and treatment programs via their taxes.
Yet some CPD officers still prefer pot heads over alcohol and tell me does pot sales help pay their salaries? Some would argue under the table yes. Ahh the emerald triangle burbs are concerned about one alcohol store vs uncontrolled pot sales.

Silva April 23, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Thank you ChampagneKitty. That’s very good to know.

Rick April 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM


That would be nice!

ChampagneKitty April 23, 2014 at 12:21 PM

You’re welcome, Jess and Silva. I watched the whole meeting last night from home. The video is now available if anyone wants to watch it. You don’t have to watch the whole meeting, you can skip to this item. Like a lot of things, the issue was not as black-&-white as it seemed.

First of all, the name of the store is misleading. It was said that not everything sold in the store costs $.99 or under. That was true back in the 80’s, but not now. They do have things that cost more than that. The man speaking on behalf of the store is a hired consultant. He said the store owner wasn’t planning to sell any hard liquor, just beer and wine only and it was to be a small amount. They were willing to agree not to sell any refrigerated products, room temperature only. They were willing to agree not to sell any single serving amounts. The wine would be 750ml bottles and the beer would be in 6 packs and 12 packs. He was even willing to agree to not sell any wine that have screw top bottles; corked bottles only. So to be honest, he did a good job of not making it sound as bad as we were afraid of.

Sgt. Russ Norris was there to represent the police department. The council asked him if these conditions would change his mind about the owner selling alcohol, since the P.D. has been opposing this. Sgt. Norris said no. He continued to express concern about all the alcohol-related service calls that occur along Clayton Rd. The council also expressed concerns. By the way, to those of you who think the city council is ignorant about crime and problems some of the homeless cause…I can tell you that the council is very well aware of it. Some of them mentioned they spend a lot of time in the area and have seen it for themselves. Anyway, the consultant on behalf of the store tried to pick apart and downplay the crime statistics. It was Mayor Tim who asked him how much time does he spend on Clayton Rd. The consultant replied that he lives in southern California but has visited the $,.99 store six times. I could tell the mayor didn’t think too much of that. It was pointed out that there are many businesses nearby the $.99 store that sell alcohol so this store not having it will not deprive the public, it is not a necessity, and the store is doing well with business without the alcohol. The council wasn’t convinced that crime wouldn’t get worse if the store started selling alcohol and unanimously voted to uphold the denial of the permit.

Silva April 23, 2014 at 5:20 PM

ChampagneKitty, much appreciated recap.

I’m pretty relieved about it. Just because they say now they’re planning to sell more responsibly doesn’t mean they will be held to those promises when they are licensed.

I was surprised when a few years ago when I went in and it was much better than I remembered it being. I’ve had great success with produce, and other groceries, and occasionally find unexpected and useful items. One day we all got mattress skirts for 99¢. I’ve saved a bundle on gift wrapping, as they’ve got a well stocked section.

I can imagine the other businesses in the center are relieved.

jbelkin April 23, 2014 at 5:39 PM

You can pretty much buy alcohol for a few bucks at places like grocery outlet (i buy them as gag gifts, I’m presuming they’re mostly undrinkable)

RunDogRun April 23, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Another place to get alcohol
on Clayton Road is not ok, but
another greasy fast food place
to eat is. Now there’s some fine
common-sense driven public policy
decision making.

Silva April 24, 2014 at 7:56 AM

@RunDogRun (#81), yeah, that’s awfull too. Maybe even more so. It’s a done deal though.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: