The Hyatts and Hiltons of the world have enough dough to beat back any attempts like this to “civil forfeit” their properties — and so municipalities don’t even try. A small private operation? Not so much.
I wonder if there was somebody they forgot to pay off.
Profanity is just too weak...
This is really short on facts.
On what pretense is the local government attempting to take property?
Drugs, Taxes, Domain? What?
/johnny
When all is lost, and there is no hope, burn it down!
Let the thieving “Law Enforcement” have only ashes.
I really hate thugs with badges!
“But civil forfeiture laws treat property owners worse than criminals. Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken. Once the government targets a property for civil forfeiture, however, the property owner must prove his innocence.”
It’s the way to strike fear into the souls of law abiding people so they can be controlled by the government.
There are a dump-truck size number of regulations about non-discrimination upon the lodging industry. This has resulted in innumerable law suits about civil rights and disability access discrimination. Given Massachusetts' reputation, I will bet that it is worse there.
If my assumption is correct, then this small, unaffiliated motel is caught between the horns of government. Just because the lodger looks like a tattooed gang member, you still have to rent to him. Yet, if you do, you have harbored an illegal activity [30/125,000 = .00024 or .024%] and thus are subject to civil forfeiture.
All hail the government that giveth and then taketh away. ... Wait, what did the government give in the first place? /sarc