Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement Americas Best Motel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nuisance abatement board retains America's Best Motel under jurisdiction, defers signage payment for six months
Summary
Fort Lauderdale's nuisance abatement board kept America's Best Motel under its jurisdiction for one year and accepted a package of compliance requirements while deferring the owner’s signage payment obligation for six months; the motel logged about 130 police calls over six months, the detective said.
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement Americas Best Motel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Fort Lauderdale Nuisance Abatement Board on Sept. 11 retained America's Best Motel at 2509–2935 N. Federal Highway under its jurisdiction for one year and accepted a set of compliance conditions while deferring the owner's obligation to pay for required signage for six months. The board voted unanimously to adopt the detective's recommended corrective conditions with one modification to recommendation No. 12, moving the signage payment timeline out six months.
Detective Smith of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department said the property had about 130 calls for service over the prior six months and that law enforcement had made multiple narcotics-related arrests at the motel, including seizures described in police reports: a trafficking arrest that yielded about 30 grams of cocaine and 1 gram of fentanyl, a buy operation on Aug. 21, and an Aug. 27 search warrant that led to arrests and reported seizures of roughly 4 grams of heroin, 10 grams of crystal meth, 1 gram of crack and 3.4 grams of cocaine. “The owner will clearly display within 14 days … signs saying that the property is under the jurisdiction of the nuisance abatement board, and it's being monitored by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department,” the detective said while listing other recommended measures.
The board's order requires the owner to: file no-trespass affidavits and post at least two monitoring signs within 14 days; maintain exterior lighting to city code within 30 days; repair and maintain fencing to city code within 60 days; keep the property free of debris; prohibit loitering and loitering vehicles on all sides of the property; maintain an updated occupant list with room numbers, photo IDs and vehicle information and provide weekly reports to the investigative detective; require guests to provide vehicle make, model and plate at check-in and issue a small sign or “dash plaque” noting check-in and checkout dates to guests; and furnish a current employee list within three days and notify the detective of employee terminations or hires. The detective also asked that the owner send weekly emailed photographic updates of the property to him and to “George.”
The city assessed investigative costs at $3,487.90 and proposed assigning 50% of that amount ($1,753.96) to the owners. The order notes that failure to comply with any item will trigger fines of $250 per day per item of noncompliance. The board recorded that the owner must appear at the Oct. 9, 2025 nuisance abatement meeting and at subsequent scheduled meetings during the jurisdiction year unless otherwise notified.
Sean, who identified himself at the hearing as the property representative and said his family has owned the motel since 1986, disputed portions of the timeline and said he did not receive a certified nuisance-abatement warning dated Aug. 25 that appears in the file. “I never received this nuisance abatement warning,” Sean said, adding that he has worked with police for years and recently spent about $10,000 on a new surveillance system. He described staffing and operational constraints — low occupancy, family responsibilities and a recent injury — and stressed that his staff frequently calls police and tries to cooperate.
Board members and other panelists debated whether to levy the assessed fines immediately. Several members acknowledged the lengthy record of police calls but also noted visible corrective steps the owner had already taken. A motion to adopt the detective's recommendations with a modification to recommendation No. 12 to defer the signage payment for six months carried on a roll call vote (Kemper: yes; Dickerman: yes; Slotnick: yes; other board members recorded yes votes).
The board said it retained jurisdiction for one year and will revisit compliance after six months to evaluate whether the deferred signage requirement should be reinstated or canceled. The detective and board asked the owner to keep up weekly reports and photographic documentation so that the board and police can track progress toward reduced nuisance activity.
The owner's next required appearance is on Oct. 9, 2025, and the investigative detective said he will direct placement of signs and monitor the lighting and fencing work. The board warned that noncompliance will result in daily fines for each item not met.

