Posted on 08/09/2015 7:15:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a free market, there’s a pretty simple process for dealing with the situation that arises when one person covets another’s belongings: The coveter makes an offer to purchase them. If the offer is rebuffed, the coveter can make a new proposal, but he cannot simply take what he wants. It’s an effective way of recognizing the impracticality of the Tenth Commandment while enforcing the Eighth.
Donald Trump’s covetous nature is not in dispute, but what many may forget is that he’s no great respecter of the admonition not to steal, either: The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property. This is called, of course, “eminent domain.”
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid. In the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court held that “public use” could include, well, private use, so long as the new property owner paid more in taxes than the previous one. In other words, it allowed developers and the government to gang up on homeowners. The developer gets more land, the government gets more tax money. The only losers are the original owner and his property rights.
A decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.” Today, however, it takes a push from the Club for Growth to remind us of Trump’s lack of respect for property rights. The problem dates back to at least 1994.
That year, Trump promised to turn Bridgeport, Conn., into“a national tourist destination by building a $350 million combined amusement park, shipping terminal and seaport village and office complex on the east side of the harbor,” reported the Hartford Courant. “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.”
The wrinkle? “Five businesses and the city-owned Pleasure Beach now occupy the land,” as the Courant put it. The solution? “The city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc. and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.” Here’s how the story concluded: “The entire development would cost the city nothing, Trump said, and no private homeowners would be affected because there are no dwellings on the land. Trump would own everything.”
That brings us to the story of the aforementioned elderly widow in Atlantic City, which starts at about the same time. The woman, Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines. He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000. Perhaps the only upside to this story is that in neither case did Trump succeed.
The Bridgeport plan fizzled. Coking fought in court, and — in part because these were the days before Kelo was decided, no doubt — she was lucky enough to win. In 1998, a judge threw out the case. In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.
Can Republicans support someone with so little regard for the property of others? Let’s hope not.
— Robert VerBruggen is an associate editor of National Review.
But in all fairness, I thought Fred Thompson would make a great President too, but he’s now selling insurance and diabetes testing supplies on obscure tv stations.
RE: Trump will put a stop to that. Eminent Domain is in the constitution
Yes it is, but was it APPLICABLE in this particular case?
*THAT* is the question.
” It was a win/win for everyone.”
Other than allowing government sanctioned seizing of private property its just fine.
To heck with our Constitution; it just gums up the works at times.
There is no statute of limitations on truth.
And Ted Cruz voted for TPP...
RE: A 2011 editorial in extended news? That’s reallllly extended. Like 4 years extended.
This should be in chat.
________________________
If Donald Trump were not running today. I would agree with you. But this issue is RELEVANT today, so I disagree with you.
It goes to his understanding of the Constitution, and how he interprets it.
Are you seriously saying that what a candidate did 4 years ago doesn’t matter? That you’ll support an extremist like Trump even when he has no conservative record, just bluster?
I’m living in the twilight zone here on Freerepublic. Everyone’s under the spell of the Pied Piper just because he throws lots of beautiful hissy fits.
Looks like the TDS sufferers are rallying around the cause tonite. And a four year old article, no less.
Given that I have zero intention of voting, I have no dog in the fight. Other than I happen to admire Trump’s chutzpah. I also happen to be greatly amused by his ability to get great real estate deals. Especially the one where he lives in thousands of TDS sufferers heads, rent free.
Of course its a valid issue. All candidates have to face questions about their past and many will face much older questions. Trump has been a celebrity for 30 years and has a container ship full of ammo following him around.
Hell, I remember FReepers happily beating up on Rick Santorum’s wife for dating a doctor in college who later performed abortions. Herman Cain and a supposed past affair. Michele Bachmann and her history of Migraines. The pics of Newt & Nancy sure weren’t out of bounds.
I guess Donald Trump’s blaming Pam Geller for the Garland terror attack is also “ancient history”.
Looks like the TDS sufferers are rallying around the cause tonite. And a four year old article, no less.
_______________________________________
And they’re strangely silent about Cruz voting in favor of TPP...hmmm?
Mrs Trumps baby can do no wrong? heavens....whats THIS??
perhaps there’s more to the “donald” mystique.....than meets the eye??
Your post 19 sounds reasonable. Perhaps in rare cases where there was no alternative. But as a general principle it is just flat wrong.
Not if he really said it.
You really think someone who "agrees with Kelo 100%" should be naming future judges?
I'll wait for verification.
What did the courts say?
Again eminent domain is a very little issue relative to sell out of American wealth that both parties have committed through low tariffs and off shoring.
Yeah, we’re all smoking trump crack. Get off your high horse and realize that there are the pragmatists, and the starry-eyed visionaries. We need to get our foot in the door. and Trump’s the guy to do it. Cruz will make a brilliant VP, while paving his way to the presidency.
RE: And they’re strangely silent about Cruz voting in favor of TPP...hmmm?
This is a thread about Trump, if you wish, you can open another thread on Ted Cruz’s support of the TPP.
Fred Thompson was pimping the national popular vote back at the time he was running.
I was called every name in the book for bringing it up.
I wish the government would come buy my house. It would save me a lot of trouble. But what about people who do not want to sell. Why should they be forced out by big money?
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.