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.
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.