Posted on 02/07/2016 7:51:46 AM PST by cotton1706
The point is Trump has no respect for property rights.
He tried to take a woman’s property by using the law rather than free markets.
I am glad he failed, but I thought we were conservatives on here, not Trump toadys.
There is only one real conservative in the chase and that is Cruz.
But Cruze is just one very small step ahead of Rubio in legislative accomplishments.
He has many credits as an attorney, but lawyers are the class most responsible for the mess we are in today.
But then who is to say Trump is not conservative? I can remember when we had many democrats who were more conservative that the republican candidates of today.
Much has been made of Trump’s donations and partying with dems, So tell me how a big league builder can succeed in NY and comparable markets without buttering up the politicians?
Long as it is legal and not graft or quid pro quo.
I don’t have the link, but I read recently that he gave huge amounts of money to republicans as well, sometimes in the amounts of $300,000.
I started out as a Cruz supporter and donated to him, but I have since decided that although he is a fighter and I agree with his goals, he will accomplish nothing significant as president.
With the audience howling like the crowd on Jerry Springer, I didn’t expect much to be diff’rent.
Is it true that when Trump took over the project, nearly all of the properties where the parking lot was had already been purchased? There was one hold out.
Is it true that Trump offered the lone hold out over a million dollars for that house, and was the value of that house much lower than the million plus offered?
Is it true that Trump had to apply to government have ED even considered?
Is it true that the woman never was “thrown out” of her house, and continued to reside there for many years afterwards?
Is it true that she later sold that same house for far less than she had been offered by Trump?
Is it true that Trump never took an old ladies house by ED?
Bush family used eminent domain when building sport facility in Texas
No, it isn't.
In spite of Malkin’s insinuation, Trump was not involved with the Kelo situation, though he has commented on it.
Apart from the well known poor-little-old-lady case in Atlantic City, where is the documentation of other uses of eminent domain by Trump?
Cruz’s ad says that eminent domain abuse made Trump rich.
Where is the proof of that?
Actually, I apologize. You’re partially correct.
It IS a Republican position.
It’s neither conservative nor constitutional.
“The establishment hates the truth.”
They can’t handle the truth. :-)
Is it true she had a right to “hold out” without Trump using the armed force of law to evict her against her will.
Conservatives believe in property rights.
Cultists believe in whatever Trump says or does.
Do you see the difference?
That's fine. Property owners should get whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. A smart property owner will recognize that there may be billions of dollars at stake and therefore ask for far more than the property's assessed or appraised value.
The history of the Coking widow.
In the late 1970s, Penthouse tycoon Bob Guccione, eager to get in on the Atlantic City casino action, offered Coking $1 million for her lot. She refused. Exasperated, Guccione tried to build his facility around the house, but his project went broke before he could finish, leaving a steel frame looming over Coking’s place for more than a decade.
So, there was a massive steel framework virtually encasing the house. She had run the house as a boarding home, but did not take any borders from the time the first casino was built in 1978.
Trump comes along in the early 90’s and acquires the unfinished Guccione project, and the CRDA (the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority) offered her low market value - condition considered, and she refused. She wanted one million (even though she had refused that same amount when offered to her in 1980), (then later on down the road when Trump came up to her asking she refused her own price).
She blamed Trump personally for some damage done to her roof by the construction company that had the job of disassembling that steel structure that Guccione had built OVER her house.
The construction company took ownership of the damage, and offered to pay her $90,000 to have repairs. She refused. She wanted more and she wanted to sue Trump in the bargain. The judge wouldn’t go for that. Eventually she took the $90,000 because she was so far in arrears on her property taxes that she was in immediate danger of having the house foreclosed for unpaid taxes.
Superior Court Judge Richard Williams said the attempt by the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to take the property for a new parking lot and a public park at Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino was flawed because it did not guarantee that the company would not later use the land simply to expand the business. Yet, Trump never did do anything with that land he had the structure removed from except build a parking lot AND a landscaped public green-space.
Of course she had a right to hold out. As far as your rather histrionic “ARMED FORCE OF LAW” - there was never a hint of such a thing. Trump, along with the local government, wanted to secure that property. They were not able to, so Trump dropped it. No one showed up at the woman’s door with a swat team.
Atlantic City wanted her to sell, Trump wanted her to sell, they went to court, the court ruled against it. BECAUSE they thought Trump might put a casino on the lot instead of the parking lot and green space he presented in his plan. See, research.
If trump had won in court, and the woman still didn’t want to leaver her HOME, what do you think would have happened?
The ARMED force of the law would evict her and possibly arrest her if she resisted.
Welcome to the America Trump wants to see.
I prefer Liberty.
I prefer property rights.
I prefer Cruz.
That’s correct. Public USE, not public PURPOSE, as the USSC has tried to change it to.
********************************************************************************
Yep, “public use” has been twisted into so many “pretzels” that it has long since lost its intended (by the founders) meaning. A number of FORMER constitutional conservatives have been dragged away from defending the constitution and its meaning because of “convenience” or because their political divinity defines it a certain way.
There is no requirement to give a state of the union address.
God forbid the press would pass up a TV spot. I am for a constitutional amendment banning them.
Good to know.
It goes to private refineries, House.,Phillips Petroleum and others. It’s using eminent domain to benefit huge corporation. There’s really no getting around that.
Get over it. It didn’t happen. Trump did her a huge favor in the end by removing that massive steel structure that the first developer had built OVER and surrounding her house. Trump did remove that. And he had a parking lot and green space landscaped where the massive structure had been. She was hunkered down under that thing for a dozen years because she was holding out for more money. Without the casino’s going in her property wasn’t worth half of what she had been offered in 1979, but she figured she’d get rich off of it. Fine, but it didn’t work out that way for her and she eventually lost the place because of unpaid taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.