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 ...
So you agree with Kelo? Should we strike the words “public use” from Amendment V and replace them with the words ‘public good’? Because not even Bernie Sanders believes that. But Trump does.
Because she didn’t want to sell, as was her RIGHT.
>>Trump is a big-government kind of guy,
As long as it works for him.
That’s what makes his amoral cult of “Nationalist Populist” personality so disturbing. There’s no visible moral framework there.
But, it was HER decision. Don’t conservatives profess to believe in the rights of the individual? I hear the same voices calling to get rd of OBama care because it forces people to dispose of their personal property, their money, in a certain way whether they want to or not. What is the big stink, then when Harry Reid tries to pull the same thing in Nevada and force a sale to some foreign group to build a for-profit venture? Trump is a con, a very good one, but still a con.
I think you are looking at this skewed. Atlantic City at the time was dying. There was no industry, no jobs, extensive urban blight and crime. No one wanted to move there and there was no tax base to fix things up. The town and surrounding areas hatched a plan to build casinos, got the State to approve because the town’s situation otherwise was a disaster.
The building of casinos spurred a lot of tourism for years. Atlantic City also became a conference destination. The tax base improved. Things took a downturn as we hit the recession and as other gambling sites were developed, splitting the traffic but it was a gamble that paid off well for years.
Trump came in after the process had been ongoing for years and made a proposal that was accepted by the town/CRDA (development society) He did nothing wrong and they had the right to encourage developers and decide to pursue the woman’s property and many other properties in concert with many other developers.
Whether she was wrong or right to refuse to sell is neither here nor there and is no one’s business. I am glad that she got her day in court and the issue was adjudicated because we are supposed to live in a Nation of laws. In this case the rights of the one were judged to be more valid than the supposed benefits to the many (tax base, town council). That’s OK and the town and Trump did nothing wrong by making a plan to revive the town’s economic development.
The point here is that the pitcher's teammates were able to convince him to hit the first batter he faced. Did the batter get hit? No. But he damn well tried.
Let’s add a salient fact—she did want to sell for what she was offered—BOTH times.
Still her right, but in hindsight, very foolish.
Public good = the good of politicians + developers.
Correction—she did NOT want to sell
A public use was deemed to embrace increasing taxes, which in turn would empower purchase of other things more tangibly put to public use.
This is not the first time the USSC ever has used an indirection argument like this, I highly suspect.
Whenever you have a City Hall you always run these kinds of risks. Kelo brought out into the open what had long been happening behind the scenes with a nod, wink.
The proper answer is local law. I think every state should have the onus to regulate this sanely, or risk losing people who disagree that real estate, in the end, belongs to Caesar anyhow.
Very interesting connection there.
In other words, the term "Public Use" was deemed to be something it is not. If I call heads 'tails', does that make it tails?
...attempting to purchase at quadruple value.
The value of a home is that which a buyer AND the seller agree to.
Trump did convince the city take her property in order to sell it to Trump so he could bulldoze it. If the appellate could had not prevented it from happening, that’s exactly what would have happened.
The appellate court decision made it very clear that the facts supported the claim that the city condemned the property in order to sell it to Trump. The city NEVER argued that they had any current or future plans to use the property for a public purpose.
So what? The owners get paid 2, 3, 4 times or more what the property is worth?
The wall with Mexico. Keystone pipeline (a private company). The Rangers ballpark. None of those possible without using this law.
I personally do not believe that fascism is an acceptable model for government. I am partial to the government that our Founding Fathers set up - the one that is based upon liberty. Hey, but if fascism works for you, then Trump is your man. Hopefully, one of his cronies won't negotiate their way into ownership of your property simply because they think they need it more.
As opposed to the quite visible immoral framework now in place, Trump's T.Roosevelt/Eisenhower/Reagan approach really messes with your head that badly? I pity you.
| This thread, like so many on FR, has evolved into a Cruz vs. Trump argument over who is the "more authentic conservative" or supports certain policies. But issues and conservatism is only one dimension. Republicans are also voting for the proven abilities of the man himself. Can he lead the whole country? Can he deal with Congress and Putin? What solid things has he accomplished in his life so far that lead me to believe he can get the job done? Take Rubio. Here's a guy who is a babe in the woods when it comes to the economy and jobs. In his young life, has he ever held a non-government job? Whatever he knows about the economy and job creation he read about in a book somewhere. It's all theoretical. But when you manage a business or other organization, you gain instincts and smartness that books will never teach you. So Rubio may be an expert in politics and lawyering, but what can he really offer the Democrat/Independent/Union/Black voters in swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan who want jobs? So it's fine to argue about a candidate's positions and lack of consistency, but voters are also concerned about which candidate can lead and save the country -- not just theoretically save the country but actually save the country by taking effective action. |
All you have shown is that Trump and Bush are like two peas in a pod on this.
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.