> Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more.

They could just as easily threaten owners of a motel, and tell them that if they don't get to do their thing there will be more trouble than the motel owner can handle.

Having a fixed place of business makes you vulnerable, and the neighbourhood this motel is in makes me sceptical about it being easily sold to new owners. I think there is an element of making an example out of this particular motel to scare the rest into compliance. "Look what happens if you don't clean up, you lose your business". But unfortunately if you do try to clean up you find yourself facing armed gangsters. Tough choice.

Life is full of tough choices though. Unless the end game for all time is supposed to be meth labs in every fourth room something had to change.

I would ask if the owner bothered to get the police involved but I suspect people will just tell me that the government is evil, why would he call the police, and other such statements. :P

A business owner is not a part of law enforcement. Law enforcement should do their own homework, and if they have proof or indication of wrongdoing at some location they should go after the perpetrators, not after the location.

If you go after the location all you achieve is that the crime will shift a bit down the street, or to another part of town, or will go even deeper underground. If you go after the perpetrators you make a start with plugging the hole, and you should make it painfully obvious that the owners had nothing to do with the busts lest they end up paying the price. Of course, if the owners accept direct payment (instead of simply receiving 'industry standard' compensation for lodging) for turning a blind eye things would change. Similar issues exist with clubs where drug dealers pay a fee to the house in order to be able to work on the premises.

A place where I used to work had a coffeehouse next door that was used by a motorcycle gang for their 'meetings'. I guarantee you that if the owner had called the police the place would have burned to the ground.

Businesses caught in the crossfire between law enforcement and crime are in an extremely tough position, getting the police involved is the fastest way to get into serious trouble or end up dead.

If you think that 'not going to the police' is cowardly then you'll be happy to know that a very large number of crimes ends up unsolved because one day the criminal will walk free again and witness protection only goes so far.

The simplicity with which you assume these things are handled is not reflected in real life, dealing with criminals invading your property is extremely difficult.

If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.

What I can't understand is that you seem to think that it is simultaneously true that law enforcement can fully investigate these kinds of criminal activity without at least the tacit awareness of the owners, and that the owners can somehow convince the crime lords that they would have had nothing to do with law enforcement's later arrests (especially given the coffeehouse you mention).

So sure, criminals are dangerous. I completely agree. But it is not incumbent on the rest of society to "sit there and take it" because the building owner is in a difficult spot. No matter what gets done to advance the situation from there the building owner will have tough problems to face.

But in this particular situation everyone knew there was crime going on there, so this is one of the very few owners who'd be able to say with a straight face that it's not like he tipped the cops off if he wanted to work them.

> If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.

And the same solutions, one would imagine. I'm not at all saying it's an easy problem to fix, I just don't see how "do nothing" is a valid member of the "possible solution" set.

> What I can't understand is that you seem to think that it is simultaneously true that law enforcement can fully investigate these kinds of criminal activity without at least the tacit awareness of the owners, and that the owners can somehow convince the crime lords that they would have had nothing to do with law enforcement's later arrests (especially given the coffeehouse you mention).

Criminals congregating in a place gives you a good reason to visit the place. The owner would not have to have anything to do with that at all, clearly the police is aware this is a problem spot, the occasional probe by officers is then to be expected. That's called patrolling the neighbourhood and investigating suspicious activity. There is a clear mandate for that. All they'd have to do to get rid of most of the undesirables would be to have a coffee there twice daily, unannounced at random times.

I don't see how confiscating one of the premises is a valid member of the solution set either, but clearly that's more profitable than old fashioned police work and walking a beat. A visible presence is a very effective deterrent in cases like this.

That still won't solve the underlying problem, and it will likely still result in a shift. But it is just as effective as a confiscation and far more fair.