Posted on 02/13/2016 10:23:41 AM PST by NKP_Vet
"Trump bankrolled politicians to steamroll the little guy, a pattern of sleaze stretching back decades. Worse? Trump still supports eminent domain today."
Who knew such a wonky topic would find its way into political attacks in the Republican presidential race? An ad released this week by Ted Cruz's presidential campaign lodged a renewed attack on Donald Trump's support for eminent domain and alleged use of the government's powers for private gain, to bully an elderly woman out of her home.
There are two problematic aspects of this ad: the misleading headlines that accompany the narration and the cherry-picked footage of Trump's answers that misrepresent the context of his statements. We took a look at these two elements, the context of the ad and the actual sources of the quotes and footage the ad used.
The Facts
The case
In 1994, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a government agency, attempted to seize an elderly widow's home. The agency tried to invoke "eminent domain," which refers to the government's right to acquire private property for public use.
The house was located near the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City. The agency wanted to turn the house and two other properties over to the Trump Organization. Trump had planned to landscape the area and build a new parking lot, with a waiting area for limousines.
The woman, Vera Coking, was in her 70s and had lived in her home for 37 years. She refused to give it up. Then, a four-year court battle ensued.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The part where I finally got tired of watching the asymmetric warfare waged by the Trumpettes and decided to fight fire with fire.
That part.
I don’t see the “strong armed part”. The vast majority of of the references to Trump in the case are related to the exhibits of the agreement/proposal between Trump and CDRA for Trump to build a casino and how Trump was bound if CDRA acquired the specific property in question and transferred it to him.
In the judge’s opinion the binding was not sufficiently specific and that was the reason the case was decided against CDRA.
She was a fool because she wanted to live out her days in HER house? At her age what would she want all that money for? She already had a house, just where she wanted to live. I think the result of the court case shows exactly how unprincipled Trump is. It’s all about the money.
Whole house moves have been done though they are not cheap. The price offered was to get the land and the house was of no concern; at the figure offered arguably she might have been able to manage to do just that, maybe even negotiate a bit more because that would save demolition costs.
Sometimes truths do lean to one interest more than another.
Well, it’s not working! ;-) Nothing you can say can steal my joy! Tediban, Cruzadian, and Teddy Bare, are all simple terms of endearment! ;-)
The original offer in 1970’s was 1 million, Trump’s was reportedly 2 million and the other 3 neighbors who sold at that time sold for 2 million so it seems reasonable to accept the $2million offer number Trump has reported.
The point is that Trump used the eminent domain power of the CRDA for the purpose seizing private property for his own use. The court records confirm this.
don’t count on it!
(but thanks)
They thought the woman was greedy and was holding up the new casino which would provide jobs and they applauded Trump for trying to bring jobs to the area.
______________________—
You are correct, Vera’s property was being sought to add an additional tower to the casino. The parking lot was a temporary use until the other property owners were bought out which would have created a large enough “assemblage” to build the new tower. Since the additional tower was not a part of the original plan, the courts ruled against the Casino Corp.
Her son was leaning on her to get more, and pushed the demand past what Trump reportedly ponied up.
Had everyone looked for a humane solution and not felt forced into locking horns, yes something like moving the whole building, even to a nicer piece of land, could have come into play.
The Cruz ad says Trump colluded to take the property. He did. That his attempt was not successful does not mean he didn’t try to do it.
Re funding Planned Parenthood: these people have *no* principles. We were lucky that Trump tipped his hand too early.
And eventually a tactic like this was to hit the USSC in the case called Kelo, which ironically made a good counterexample to the WISDOM of such a move... the would be purchaser never followed through and it went to waste. More than forty states also added provisos to their law to limit eminent domain in some fashion in the wake of Kelo. Nothing about Kelo said a state had to have an equally lax policy; this was not the Roe v. Wade of eminent domain. Federalism arguably did the right thing here.
Thanks—the information I had indicated Trump matched Guccione’s earlier offer, when, in fact, he doubled it.
Two other properties were involved in the eminent domain issue at the same time Coking’s property was.
Sabato’s Restaurant went for $2.1 million and a pharmacy went for $1.6 million.
Therefore, the $2 million was a very good offer.
Coking was visited twice by the real estate fairy and rejected her good fortune twice.
You will, at least till Cruz muffs something, then your perfectionometer will be searching, searching, searching again.
I try not to tell time based on the second hand alone of the clock.
Cruz’s rightly claims Trump ‘convinced’ the gov to ‘attempt to bulldoze’ a widow’s home
You're talking about a difference so subtle (yet important) that I doubt 10% of the populace could genuinely follow the argument (maybe 20% of Freepers).
Which actually plays to Trump's favor. lol
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.