Posted on 02/08/2016 5:12:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
There's no question that one of the most memorable exchanges in last night's GOP debate in New Hampshire came over the question of eminent domain, the constitutionally sanctioned taking of private property for public use. Donald Trump is for robust use of eminent domain, including instances that most people would agree constitute eminent-domain abuse. That is, situations in which the property being seized is delivered either immediately or soon after to a private entity (such as the egregious case in which Trump himself worked with Atlantic City officials to kick a widow out of her house so he could expand a parking lot he owned).
Not all eminent domain is abuse, though, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled dumbly in Kelo v. New London, the 2005 case that sparked new state-level protections for property owners, that a city could essentially take any property and give it to private developers as long as the planned development would somehow benefit the public via higher tax revenue. (Reason covered Kelo long before the case made it to the Supremes; read our interview right after the discussion with one of the lawyers representing Suzette Kelo, Scott Bullock of the Institute of Justice.)
As Robby Soave has already noted, during last night's debate, Trump clearly lost the audience when he unapologetically defended eminent domain. But he also made a point that received little to no notice but is just as telling as the real-estate mogul's willingness to use whatever levers he can to get what he wants: The Keystone XL pipeline isn't getting built without yuge amounts of eminent domain. And what's more: Jeb Bush, who pushed the Donald out for his willingness to try (unsuccessfully) kick widows out of their homes, agrees.
Check out the exchange, part way in:
TRUMP: ...Eminent domain, the Keystone pipeline--do you consider that a private job? Do you--do you consider that...
BUSH: I consider it a public use.
TRUMP: No--no, let me ask you, Jeb. Do you consider the Keystone pipeline private?
BUSH: It's a public use. It's a public use.
TRUMP: Is it public or private?
BUSH: It's a public use.
TRUMP: Real--a public use?
BUSH: Yeah.
TRUMP: No, it's a private job.
BUSH: It's a public use.
TRUMP: It's a private job.
BUSH: Established by the courts--federal, state courts.
TRUMP: You wouldn't have the Keystone pipeline that you want so badly without eminent domain.... You wouldn't have massive--excuse me...you wouldn't have massive factories without eminent domain.
Note that Barack Obama's years-long dithering on giving the OK or not to let the Keystone XL pipeline to built was seen by virtually all Republicans as yet one more sign that the crypto-Muslim was hell-bent on destroying America. Because the extension of the Keystone pipeline crosses the U.S. border with Canada, the president ha sthe authority to halt construction if he determined the construction wasn't in the "the national interest." Obama determined that it didn't. And when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also eventually came out against the pipeline, it was just one more sign that Democrats, liberals, green-meanies, and whatnot were not just ideologically blinded by the global-warming lobby but were positively rooting for America to become a third-world country. It's an article of faith among conservatives and many libertarians that the pipeline should have been approved.
It's also safe to say that all the candidates on the stage last night support building the Keystone XL pipeline. And it goes without saying that many if not all of them are totally against eminent-domain abuse, which got its sanction from the 1949 Housing Act, championed and signed by Harry Truman as a means of ushering in a vast era of "urban renewal" (the writer James Baldwin quipped bitterly that "urban renewal means 'negro removal.'")
The real question, and one that Trump raises, is whether using eminent domain to build a privately operated pipeline such as Keystone XL constitutes a legitimate use of the process or not. In Texas, pipeline operators avail themselves of eminent domain if they agree to be "common carriers,...a pipeline that will be available at market rates for other companies to use, and therefore in the public interest." The Keystone case is complicated enough that the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest firm behind the Kelo case (and dozens of successful state laws that tightened use of eminent domain at the state level) takes no position on whether the proposed project is a legitimate use of eminent domain:
But Steven Anderson, the Institute for Justice's managing vice president, told ThinkProgress that the group's focus is on making sure eminent domain is reserved for “traditional public uses," and that it does not currently take a position on pipelines in general or Keystone XL in particular. Instead, he said, the group focuses on “obvious private to private transfers."
Is Donald Trump an unabashed supporter of the worst and most-obvious use of eminent domain abuse? Absolutely, and it's one more indicator that he's not a limited-government character.
However, if Jeb Bush and all the other pro-Keystone XL candidates onstage last night agree the pipeline should be built, then they've got a tough question to answer. One so tough that the group that almost singlehandedly brought eminent-domain abuse to light a decade ago hasn't taken a position on the project. Should all the people booing Trump last night be forcing their favored Republican to explain whether he thinks the project should only go forward without using eminent domain? Or at least, that he should clarify (as Bush did) that he believes the pipeline serves a public interest (which is different than "the national interest")?
In 2013, Reason TV offered up "3 Reasons To Build The Keystone XL Pipeline," none of which addressed the question of eminent domain:
/
We’ll never see eye-to-eye because I basically do not view all private enterprise as equal. The oil industry and the rail industry and their intrinsic importance to the nation’s security is different than some shopping mall, Best Buy store, or casino parking lot.
Typically in our area, utilities take easements.
Which isn't quite the same as (trying) to take a widow's house for a casino parking lot.
It did not happen
Because a court actually followed the Constitution and slapped the Donald and his crony bought politicians down.
The point here is what the Donald believes about private property rights and the answer is not much when it gets in his way.
Very instructive to voters I hope.
To the cult, issues and facts don’t matter, I get it.
“OneLord” will not pay attention to your facts. I have presented the same facts and get histrionic replies about Trump taking ARMED POLICE FORCES in to drag old widows out of their homes. Here is some more info on the Trump v. widow:
BY THE NUMBERS
$20,000~ Is what Vera Coking and her husband paid for the 29-room boardinghouse/low income rooming house. In 1961.
$1 million offered by Bob Guccione in 1979/1980.
$1 million offered by Trump after Superior court denied ED.
$530,000~Price fetched at auction.
$995,000~Asking price prior to forced auction.
$2M~ Amount Donald Trump offered as recently as several years before.
AND - it was reported in the newspapers that Trump not only eventually offered her 2+ million, but in addition to that also offered to provide her a free place to live in Palm Beach FL for the remainder of her life.
Not to mention that he had that structure which had been built over her house by Guccione pulled down, and in it’s place the lots were covered with parking lot and a landscaped public green space.
Trump did not damage her home. A construction company, which was removing that massive steel structure Guccione had built OVER the rooming house (because that is what it was) took full responsibility for all damage that happened to the property. They offered $90,000. for repairs, but she wanted $125,000. AND she wanted to personally sue Trump. She claimed that Trump caused the damage.
Well, the Judge would not allow here to sue Trump - I mean the construction company owner was standing in the courtroom admitting it was his own crews fault! She kept trying to sue Trump though she never got anywhere. In the end she took the $90,000 from the construction co. because she was $25,000. in arrears in property tax and in immediate danger of the house being foreclosed for taxes.
So, Trump had that hideous and dangerous structure removed, and in it’s place went in a parking lot and a landscaped public green space. Which had to have been preferable to that steel structure which Guccione had built that encased her rooming house. Have you googled pictures of that structure? I suggest you do so.
Trump did not damage her home. A construction company, which was removing that massive steel structure Guccione had built OVER the rooming house (because that is what it was) took full responsibility for all damage that happened to the property. They offered $90,000. for repairs, but she wanted $125,000. AND she wanted to personally sue Trump. She claimed that Trump caused the damage.
______________________________________________________
Who owned the structure and who hired the contractor who damaged the property?
Trump of course.
She felt the damage wa intentional, part of the pressure on her to abandon her home of 30+ years. I don’t know if that is true or not. Neither do you.
I do know that Trump worked hand in hand to take a persons home they didn’t want to sell away from them. That is unamerican.
He offered the woman a great deal of money - in fact he came up to her asking price, then she said NO. She had pulled the same thing on Guccione. Guccione ended up so frustrated with her that he built that massive structure. Frankly, that is a horrible thing to have done. Trump didn’t do anything so vile - he went the legal route. His people said they didn’t expect to win, but in order for the project to go forward they had an obligation to try. Trump continued to try to negotiate with Coklin over the years, but she basically was into the notoriety AND wanted to keep moving the goalpost.
As to a construction company - I myself have hired a construction co. to do a job here and there. Even though they are simple jobs - usually something ends up broken, or missing or done incorrectly. Does that make ME responsible for having done the damage?
The Judge told her she had zero grounds to blame Trump. The owner of the construction co took full blame. But she wanted to be in the papers some more. I mean that man paid to have that massive structure torn down that was encasing her rooming house! Have you seen a photo of that?
Oh, and Trump had offered to pay for her to stay elsewhere while the structure was being demolished if she was worried about her safety. She refused.
Hey I am all for getting the best deal that you can, but to set a price, then refuse it and set a higher price, then refuse THAT when it is offered is straight up bullstuff.
She either got bad financial or legal advice or she just wasn't thinking clearly. She did say something about not having anything left after she paid her lawyer (it was in one of the papers).
I thought the lawyers did that free of charge for her. Knights in shining armor stuff.
bkmk
When I find the quote again, I'll send you a link.
Notice you don't explain what is "bullshit" about it:
"Coking, now 85, famously refused to sell her former 29-room boarding house to Donald Trump in the 1990s for less than her at least $5 million asking price. She didn’t get it."
http://casinoconnectionac.com/issue/vol-11-no-5-may-2014/article/vera-coking-drops-price-on-landmark-atlantic-city-home
Here she is again:
"An emotional Coking, however, said she would gladly sell the home where she has lived for 35 years if Trump would only offer a fair price."
http://casinoconnectionac.com/issue/vol-11-no-5-may-2014/article/vera-coking-drops-price-on-landmark-atlantic-city-home
So much for "this is my dream house! I'll never sell it!" But she had it on the market for 5 million, when everyone else was getting 1 or more million for homes valued at less than 2-300 thousand dollars.
Wanna know what that smell is? It's called a scam from an old hag, milking the media for sympathy while trying to blackmail developers for years to get rid of her dump of a home.
As for the damages, Coking was paid 90,000 for them by the contractor, outside of court. The court itself wouldn't even allow Trump to be mentioned, as it was between her and the contractor. After blaming Trump for the damages, on the day she was to testify she pulled out and accepted a settlement with the company. I guess she wasn't as confident as she pretended.
No excuse for the crony capitalist to get the government to steal here property.
Don’t want to pay the skiing price fine, move on to another property.
What if a big agribusiness wants to buy a family farm, but don’t want to pay what the Owners want should the government force them to sell?
Of course not, unless you are a crony capitalist who doesn’t believe in the constitution.
I hope the gov takes property for a ‘connected’ business to make money on.
So anybody can spend millions investing in a neighborhood, but can be subjected at any time to unreasonable blackmail from a single hold out? Seems like it's not so much about "stealing property" or "crony capitalism," but who it is that gets all the legal protection. I for one would like both sides to be equally protected.
Don’t want to pay the skiing price fine, move on to another property.
Tell that to the oil companies like Keystone you support, who get the right of way via the government.
There's an easy solution to make your position consistent:
Nationalize all pipelines and rail roads or charge heavy surcharges for their use from the private companies, in this way the public receives a direct public "use" from them, rather than the public benefit that they have been justified by for more than a hundred years.
Most of this land was the residual lands of the Hawaiian monarchy and was held by a charitable trust. The revenue was used to benefit Hawaiian schools and the like. The real reason why the rental market on that little island was screwed up was because the government owned nearly half of it. But they wanted it all and got it, and justified it by claiming that a charitable trust had accumulated too much land. The problem of "extreme wealth", as she put it, had caused harm on society.
The Bush-Trump exchange was interesting and Bush apparently “won” it. But Jeb forgot to mention his family used eminent domain too - to build a baseball park. The value of the team increased as a result of the new ballpark and when it was sold, Dubya made a few million.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3394182/posts
And I think I read that they’re currently involved in another issue regarding eminent domain.
Government fixes nothing.
What really needs to occur is a constitutional amendment that will settle the full extent of eminent domain, though there MUST be protections for businesses and other industries that might invest millions of dollars into an area but be sabotaged by one or two hold-outs demanding blackmail money. They deserve protection too.
You are a liar
Trump offered her million dollars for the property numerous times, some even say Trump offered even more, but it seemed the more he offered, the more she wanted
This was not a “home” by any standards, this was a three floor building that was used as a boarding house, 19 rooms she rented weekly to anyone who could pony up the cash. The other businesses in the block took Trump’s million dollar offers, a Pawn Shop and I believe a liquor store.
The Atlantic City casino authority was using eminent domain becausde she was playing games with Trump and they wanted to get this done and over with. They lost the case. However Trump still offered her the million dollars for the property. Property was sold off at auction for $530,000 to Carl Icahn, yes that guy.
I am also in New Jersey and a I have a positive view of Trump, he is not the “evil capitalist” that you and other liberals paint him to be. He has done a lot of “good” especially in New York
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.