I listened to “Art of The Deal,” concerning this particular case about the woman in Atlantic City. Apparently, she was the only hold out and her place was a shack. She should have taken the $1 million dollars and improved her status. I would have. That was far more than what it was worth. I know our local hospital bought out an entire street with Imminent domain policy. The people got far more for their properties than what they were worth. It was a win/win for everyone.
Emminant domain requires the government give you ‘fair market value’ for the property. If played right, you can make out like a bandit.
What was it worth to her? In a society where the politically powerless have property rights that are as meaningful as those of the politically powerful, that is the only sensible 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.
Your post 19 sounds reasonable. Perhaps in rare cases where there was no alternative. But as a general principle it is just flat wrong.
So what? She didn’t want to sell — that home had been owned by her family for decades, but Trump chose not to respect her decision. Instead the a**hole dragged her to court.
I’m amazed how you people rationalize Trump’s actions.
You say “It was a win/win for everyone”. Except for the lady that lost her property. It was her property. She should have the right to sell it or not sell it. If you disregard a fundamental right because your candidate has abused it you show a lack of principles. Fundamental principles are timeless. They can’t be explained away.