There's more the the CREW lawsuit than just the hotels. It also includes office lease and his TV show. Further, it's not the case they have to have had a hotel or similar economic activity to Trump's to have standing. A pretty good explanation of this is in Ragin v Harry Macklowe Real Estate. Provided they CAN fully demonstrate that the illegal activity (if proven) did divert resources, they will have standing. Of course, you can expect that contention is going to be strongly contested by Trump's defense. In Ragin, the court finds that they haven't been shown that the violation caused them to do something they wouldn't have been doing anyhow. In the Trump case, I'm not sure that's the case. Presumably CREW doesn't go around looking at politician's violations to the emoluants clause as part of the normal mission.

Quoting
cbg
But I will say that we are dealing with an unprecedented situation that I doubt the framers of the Constitution ever considered.
I believe they most certainly DID consider it, or else they wouldn't have included it in the document. Alexander Hamilton expressed it this way:
"One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption."
In fact, it is a concern all the time. It's just that for the first time we have a president who most likely is receiving such who refuses to "open the books" on it.
I can tell you from the time I spent as an employee of the executive branch, once you get to a certain point in authority (In 1987, I put my signature to a CRAY 2 procurement $25MM in those dollars, aproximately $52MM today), they do indeed look at your finances. I had to complete a disclosure and check of my holdings (which wasn't much as a 26 year old computer geek) looking for both foreign involvement and conflicts with the potential suppliers to the government. This regularly comes up at the appointee level.