If what they're doing is illegal, they have a right not to have their property taken without the protections of being a criminal defendant.
If what they're doing isn't illegal, the state and city governments have the power to pass a law against it that actually gives them fair warning as opposed to nonspecific threats.
If what they're doing isn't illegal and the state and city governments don't want to pass a law against it, there's no reason to substitute the US Attorney's judgement for that of the people whose job it is to enforce the law.
The US attorney's office shouldn't have standing to sue on behalf of the neighborhood. The neighbors might. If it's for some reason in the national interest to make sure that this particular flop-house changes its address, I suppose they could fund the case.
In other words, it is a textbook case of CAF abuse: avoiding criminal trials to get a plaintiff-friendly civil trial, stretching jurisdiction limits, bypassing separation of powers by enshrining prosecutors as policymakers, the whole deal.
If what they're doing isn't illegal, the state and city governments have the power to pass a law against it that actually gives them fair warning as opposed to nonspecific threats.
If what they're doing isn't illegal and the state and city governments don't want to pass a law against it, there's no reason to substitute the US Attorney's judgement for that of the people whose job it is to enforce the law.
The US attorney's office shouldn't have standing to sue on behalf of the neighborhood. The neighbors might. If it's for some reason in the national interest to make sure that this particular flop-house changes its address, I suppose they could fund the case.
In other words, it is a textbook case of CAF abuse: avoiding criminal trials to get a plaintiff-friendly civil trial, stretching jurisdiction limits, bypassing separation of powers by enshrining prosecutors as policymakers, the whole deal.