I can't post the link because the articles name names, but you can google "New York Times" "The New Brothels" for an article published on November 14, 2018.  You'll get additional, related stories as well.
.
I posted this to the NY Board, too, but things are pretty dead over there and I thought it would be of General as well as just NY interest.

As a veteran horndog who frequented the brothels in Manhattan years ago I'd say the article describes a different kind of establishment -- places known in the trade as "fast houses." These places serve a low end type of client only there for a cheap quickie.  Queens used to have a lot of them and I've stayed away.  Many of them use trafficked girls of Asian or Hispanic background. The better brothels in the old days (and some still exist today) are more expensive.  The best of them were shut down by Giuliani, just one more reason to hate that pig.

These places serve a low end type of client only there for a cheap quickie. -- That would be me.  
Now I have to read the article.

But not in favor of trafficked people.  

 
I wonder if there are places like that in L.A. I bet there are. We just need a News person to write about it.

Those establishments were not good places to visit, or work "low end clients" and "trafficked women" but people shouldn't like the person who  was in charge, when they were shutdown?

Just how do you know these girls are being trafficked?  

 

Being "trafficked" is an accusation that is thrown around quite freely nowdays, even by people who should know better. I have actually dated a few girls OTC who others have suggested where being trafficked against their will.  

 

Do you have first hand knowledge that these women are being trafficked or are you just accepting what the SLIME says at face value, or even worse are you just assuming the girls must be trafficked because they are at the low end of the P4P spectrum?

The articles go into details about some NYPD cops and former cops who were complicit in protecting the places, e.g., warning them ahead of a raid so they could get out. The articles also go into details about how landlords and realtors actively help to establish and protect those tenants. They make it sound like a BAD thing. I guess it depends on your point of view.  In the past, landlords would plead "I had no idea they were doing that!" and would be very hard to convict.  That might be changing.  
.
I don't remember anything in the article about trafficking.

That's just my own observation about places like the ones mentioned in the article.  There was also one about a gang of NYPD VIce copes who were arrested some weeks before that for their involvement in prostitution.  I don't doubt they knew some of these landlords.

If you CAREFULLY read what I wrote (something you seem incapable of doing) you'll see it was my assertion, not that of "the SLIME."  Nowhere in the original Times article do the terms "fast houses" or "trafficked" appear, which makes me wonder if you even read the article.  I used those terms because I've read numerous articles over the years about the Queens fast houses, which have been subject to many, many busts for trafficking.  Are all the articles wrong?  Any monger familiar with New York knows this to be true.
Obviously, that does not include you, Wu.
Unfortunately, your self-proclaimed vast experience with worldwide mongering has led you to believe you know everything about the subject.
Obviously, you do not.
It makes me wonder if your sloppiness results from knowing almost no one reads your posts here so you don't give a fuck?  Or are you just an idiot? LMAO

In that case you are even stupider than I thought.  

 

Just because someone is arrested for something, ESPECIALLY when it's for something headline grabbing like human trafficking doesn't make it true. For example a friend of mine who owned an Asian agency in Dallas was arrested a few years ago for human trafficking, (I saw the warrant myself) and one of the girls she was accused of trafficking was my own girl friend who I know for an absolute FACT was not being trafficked.

 
Virtually every agency that is busted is charged with trafficking, and almost never is it actually true. Even someone as dumb as you should know this and not put any stock into the attention grabbing headlines. Lets face it. "Consenting adults arrested for trying to make a living" isn't as newsworthy as "Dozens arrested in international human trafficking conspiracy"

As I often say to your idol, the often idiotic Gambler, GO BACK AND READ WHAT I WROTE.  I did NOT say that "low end" or "fast houses" meant that ALL the girls who work in such places are trafficked.  What I clearly (except to your dumb ass) said was SOME of them were.
Please ask the people who gave you your English As A Second Language course to give you your money back.

I'd call her a smart businesswoman.  There is Tiffany and K-Mart.  They both make bank.  

Consider that your normal day job person making $50/hr will earn about $100,000 per year.   To your average waitress earning $12hr or $25K/yr for 8 hour days 5 days a week plus tips, $100,000 a year would seem like a dream come true.    Now take someone who will escort for $150/hr and you are talking $40k per year just doing one hour a day five days a week.   If she is really industrious and a good marketer and can pull multiple clients a day, she is going to be hitting that $100k/year mark.  Not bad.

A $150/hour girl is only going to be poor if she is lazy or bad at marketing.

Quoting "numerous articles" explains some of the problem. Especially if we are talking about a span of 15-20 years, not just the past 3 or 4 years. In years long past, many "advocates" would scream "trafficking!" with their hair on fire and get quoted in the newspapers. However, I don't recall any articles reporting that these places were formally charged with trafficking. I'm not going to bother searching years of court filings.
.
In the case of the more recent NYC busts (a Goddess's Friends; 13 AMPs; etc.), the charges were entirely for FINANCIAL crimes; not prostitution, not solicitation, not trafficking, ... just money laundering, tax evasion, and stuff like that.  
.
Even on the other coast, some of the stories about the big bust in Seattle / Bellevue might have mentioned "trafficking", depending on the editorial slant or who was being quoted, but there were no such charges.  Quoting a third, fourth or tenth hand source who says, "My friend lives next door. Oh, those poor girls being trafficked!" does not mean that they are being trafficked! Sometimes, even LE will use "trafficking" in a news conference to justify their costly, time consuming investigations but the charges, prosecutions and, ultimately, convictions say otherwise.
.
I just googled some news stories and many of the headlines and opening paragraphs say things like "investigation of sex trafficking has led to the arrest of ..." or "using web sites to promote sex trafficking ..." but there were never any prosecutions (or charges that I can find) for trafficking.  
.
(I am not including isolated AUTHENTIC cases of trafficking or enslavement or endangerment that have come up every now and then.  There was the guy in the midwest who kidnapped girls off the street and kept them as sex slaves in his basement for many years until one escaped and saved the others. And other cases like that. NOTHING like AMPs or fast houses in NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, ....)  
.
EDIT: fixed typos

-- Modified on 12/1/2018 6:29:28 PM

and you most definitely did not say SOME of them were, you clearly said "MANY" and that is simply not true. You of all people should know that so called human trafficking is a more overused term than "new and improved". You yourself admit you don't have any first hand knowledge of human trafficking and are simply relying on second and third hand information from parties with an agenda. Even you can't be THAT fucking dumb, can you?  

 
Of course, I could be wrong and you could actually be THAT fucking dumb. After all you were dumb enough to claim you wrote "SOME" when any fool can see your actual word was MANY, so I guess there is no limit to how dumb you can be.

Almost as well as ALWAYS misreading or misconstruing what I write.  Tell me where I said every Trafficking bust was true? A careful reading of what I wrote makes clear I never said that, but careful reading is not exactly your strong suit.  Since I must spell EVERYTHING out for you please read more carefully than usual:  while not ALL of the trafficking busts in NY are justified, SOME of them are.  It's obvious if you read the coverage or see the girls on TV.  Do you honestly think there's no such thing as trafficking in NY?  Of course there is.  And nice red herring attempt about your Asian GF.  That makes ONE bogus bust you can cite, which does NOT prove the general point you're trying so weakly to make.
And your statement about trafficking busts "almost never" being actually true is simply laughable.  I don't know about LA and other cities, but the fast houses of Queens, NY, are notorious for often having trafficked women. Note I said "often," not "always." Just because you've never experienced it doesn't make it untrue.
Once again you have stepped beyond your area of competence and embarrassed yourself.  Considering how often you've done this, especially lately, one would think you'd be a bit more careful.  But that's just not in your nature, is it Wu?  So I expect you to keep on embarrassing yourself here.  It seems to be inevitable.

In fact, what you seem to be arguing is that the real answer is "none." And that's really what you've been arguing through this entire thread, which is patently ridiculous.  So tell us, Wu, do you really believe there is no trafficking in New York City? You can't have it both ways.  Though you usually try.
Also in fact, the definition of "some" is "an unspecified number," so it is not contradicted by "many."
So you fail across the boards.  Again.

"Lacist,"  ROR.  Do you know what that stand for? "Raugh Out Roud."
Oh, and if I'm a lacist you know who else is? Your idol Gambrer.  Just ask him.

Any of you mongers who remember long ago how things were in NYC, if you've seen that show, I'd be interested in your comments as to how accurately it depicts that period...

Right. That makes about as much sense as your usual pronouncements.
Dolt.

the article actually does mention trafficking.

...the district attorney in Orange County, N.Y., said the rise of human trafficking in the United States has resulted in an increasing number of landlords willing to participate in illegal activities...

The article, however, doesn't actually say that anyone in this case was charged with trafficking.

 
Are any of these apartment brothels engaged in trafficking? Who knows, but IMHO, those who deny that trafficking exists or the efforts to combat trafficking step on their toes too hard are part of the problem. I was never molested by my parish priest, but it doesn't mean it never happened to others.

On another note, my first impression f the story was the BS headline focusing on the landlord, when (again IMHO) the real story should have been about the LE and former LE who were involved.

Thanks for the correction (and comment). I didn't have time to pull up the articles (too many Captchas using TOR) and double check.