Here's the problem with what you're contending. Even if the facts are true, the issue has to do with the axe that the government wields here in disproportionate effect to those who are small and weak and not so against those who are stronger and have substantial resources:

From other articles [1] and [2]:
"Dein asked Rao if it was the government's assertion that if a drug transaction takes place in the parking lot of McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts, and the employees are aware of it and do nothing about it, the government could seize those businesses as part of the drug-forfeiture law.

Rao essentially said that was true. She responded, "The test is knowledge and reasonable steps to curb drug activity."

What makes it worse are the potentials for substantial and unstoppable abuse from the US government on forfeiture laws:

"Dein said she has "serious concerns" about the government's interpretation.

Institute for Justice attorneys argue the case is simply about money. The government stands to profit in the sale of the Caswell Motel, which is worth an estimated $1 million with no mortgage.

Under a process known as "equitable sharing," the federal government would keep 20 percent of what it nets from selling the land, and the Tewksbury Police Department would pocket 80 percent, while the Caswell family will lose its livelihood, the Institute for Justice alleges."

Bullock wrote that if the government wins, it would be a slippery slope.

"Accepting the government's theory of forfeiture would subject to forfeiture countless establishments that serve the general public simply because they are the site of occasional drug crime,'' Bullock wrote.

And to counter many of your claims above:
"But during the trial, Caswell, 69, who lives on the property with his wife, Patricia, testified he was "surprised'' by the civil-forfeiture notice.

"I never had any warning," he said.

In nearly 30 years of operating the 57-year-old Motel Caswell, which was built by his father and supports his family, Caswell testified that he has never been fined, cited or arrested, never had his business permit pulled, and was never told he could be in trouble for any third-party drug activity at the motel."

Furthermore, to your contention that this one property is the source and cause of the issues:

"It belies this notion that the area's great and there's this one problem property, the Motel Caswell," said attorney Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va.-based libertarian law firm representing motel owner Russ Caswell. "That's not the case at all.

Bullock said that when the Institute for Justice first took on the Motel Caswell case in 2011, the team examined police logs and found the rate of arrests at the motel comparable to that of its neighbors. He said more recent statistics obtained by The Sun seem in line with those initial findings.

The numbers raise the question of why this one business was targeted under the seizure laws, Bullock said.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office did not respond to a request for comment Friday."

[1] http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell...
[2] http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22365659/tewksbu...