The New York State Board on May 8, 2025, reviewed nuisance-abatement reports and police activity for several commercial properties, including 2656 East Oakland Park Boulevard, and discussed enforcement options such as fines, camera access and clearer responsibilities between store operators and property owners.

The board heard a police summary for case number 240703 at 2656 East Oakland Park Boulevard. A detective told the board, "Star America, 13 calls over the past 30 days... 2 arrests during that thing on the property," and added, "Store remains in compliance." The detective said many calls were proactive police business checks and credited recent patrols with reducing loitering.

Board members and staff combined that item with several other property reviews. For one Northwest Sixth Street address (case 24-10-051708), a detective said there were "2 calls over the past 3 days," including a disturbance in which an off-site person allegedly pulled a gun during a separate incident involving children. For case 25-01-02821 at Northwest Sixth Street a detective reported "no calls" and praised the property for cleanup, saying the chief and a major had complimented the store's condition. For 24-08-04800 Northwest 10 Terrace the detective reported no recent calls but said officers observed a man at the property three days in a row and suspected trespassing and possible dealing; the detective described store staff efforts to ask the person to leave and urged more consistent reporting.

Discussion focused on enforcement mechanics and responsibility. Board members noted a recurring theme: store employees often hesitate to call police to "stay on everybody's good side," and property owners can be absentee and unresponsive. One board member said owners and store managers sometimes shift responsibility to each other; another suggested giving property owners access to store cameras so police could confirm incidents. The detective recommended that store owners "call the police" when trespassers are observed and said anonymous reporting options were available.

The board also debated whether it could impose fines immediately or must first document noncompliance. As one speaker put it, "I don't think we can start issuing fines until we find them out of compliance," arguing the board has typically allowed a chance to cure before assessing penalties. Members asked staff to confirm the board's current authority to levy fines and whether procedures needed amendment to impose fines for repeated nuisance behavior.

No new fines or enforcement orders were adopted at the meeting. Instead, board members directed that the matters be revisited at a future meeting after staff and members pursue the following: confirm legal authority and procedures for fines, follow up with property owners about camera access, and encourage store managers to call police when trespass or illegal activity is observed. Several speakers noted they would return updates at the next meeting; one detective said, "we watch the cameras a lot," as part of ongoing monitoring.

The board approved routine minutes earlier in the meeting and adjourned after the property reviews; items about potential fines and camera access were left for further staff follow-up and discussion at a subsequent meeting.