Posted on 08/22/2015 5:25:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post.
It wasn’t the only time Trump tried to benefit from eminent domain. In 1994, Trump incongruously promised to turn Bridgeport, Connecticut, into “a national tourist destination” by building a $350m office and entertainment complex on the waterfront. The Hartford Courant reported: “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.”
But alas, five businesses owned the land. What to do? As the Courant reported: “Under the development proposal described by Trump’s lawyers, 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.” The project fell apart, though.
Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain. Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said: “Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city. Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.” Challenged by Stossel, he said that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads. But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.
In 2005 the Institute for Justice took another eminent domain case to the Supreme Court. By 5-4 the Court held that the city of New London, Connecticut, could take the property of Susette Kelo and her neighbors so that Pfizer could build a research facility. That qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the Constitution’s “takings” clause. The case created an uproar.
Polls showed that more than 80% of the public opposed the decision. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issued a scathing dissent: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms … The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”
Conservatives were especially outraged by this assault on property rights. Not Donald Trump, though. He told Neil Cavuto on Fox News: “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”
When Donald Trump says: “I give to everybody. They do whatever I want,” this is what he’s talking about: well-connected interests getting favors from government. Vera Coking knows the feeling.
later
RE: See how they slipped this in. Nothing to do with Trump.
Trump supported the Kelo decision.
See here:
Trump on Kelo: I happen to agree with it 100 percent
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/20/trump-on-kelo-i-happen-to-agree-with-it-100-percent/
Riiight, but then we shouldn't elect Trump if we don't like this law. That's why the story's relevant. It's a new article, so, not a repeat post.
Stories like these, and I’m sure there are hundreds, will destroy Trump in the general. People losing their homes or small businesses so that the billionaire can get rich will make Romney’s 47% comment pale in comparison.
Wow. Someone messed up my pizza too. That was Trump’s fault? My oh my. LOL. Desperation time.
New Article, same story from other sources have been Posted numerous times, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
#;^)
Puppies? The movie dog Marley’s breeder was actually Marla Maples when she was married to Trump. He wanted Marley euthanized. Urban Legend.
Wow, as we see again the trumpeters sell their souls for their god, the donald. No pretense at being objective. Just like the Hillary supporters. Trump could drown kittens on national TV and the trumpeters would say “nothing to see move on”.
Where's the consistency here? Suddenly all of the small offenses which were overlooked with the communist leftists suddenly are MAJOR offenses with Trump. Next, they'll investigate whether he squeezes the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end.
The consistency is that people on this board condemned Hillary’s actions. They understood that what Hillary did was wrong. These same people don’t apply that same standard to Trump. I think that is what is defined as hypocrisy. Look in a mirrors.
I did some research and this is what I found.
Trump Plaza: built by Holiday Inn and Harrah's. Trump bought them out. The adjacent, Koking house, he did not steal her property. He never owned it at all. It sold at auction in 2011 by her grandson to Carl Ichan who is going to tear it down.
Trump Castle: was built by Hilton Hotels, when Hilton finished building the hotel, he couldn't get a gambling license due to ties to the mob. Then Trump purchased it and put a casino inside it. It was already built, nothing stolen and it is the middle of nowhere in the Marino district. Later become Trump Marina and now Golden Nugget.
Taj Mahal: built by Merv Griffin, when Griffin ran out of money to finish the inside, Trump bought the property. It was already built, nothing stolen.
Trump doesn't own any casinos anymore and hasn't been invloved with them in a number of years.
In conclusion, this is another lie being told daily on the Glenn Beck program.
According to the article, in both incidents involving Imminent Domain, they were trying to hold out for more money, and Trump lost both cases.
Glenn was still lying on Friday on Hannity radio about inviting Trump onto his show numerous times.
In other words, you answered your own question.
So far, all the negative stories about Trump have been the same.
One pair of property owners were two Russian guys who had just bought the property a month before the 'offer' to purchase that property by the developer.
Seems they had inside info on what to buy in order to 'flip' it for (they expected) a huge profit. They asked for , IIRC, $4 million.
Trump made them a much lower offer and they refused. He lost the case anyway, but Trump is not the only wart in those particular instances.
This isn’t Trump’s past. This is him on the record saying what he believes the government should be able to do. And he’s asking to be put in charge of the government. To date, he hasn’t flip-flopped, er, evolved on this issue, so this is what he presently believes.
What does the media’s reporting on Democrats have to do with conservatives trying to make sure they nominate a candidate who’s conservative?
Sorry, but not “on the record” with this particular author. Good journalism requires an author to ask the subject of his piece for a response to their accusations, or to state that their office was contacted for comment and declined, etc. There isn't any such references here. Therefore, just hearsay. Absent that, I don't take it as him (Trump) on the record. Just an opinion piece.
He made the right decision to get out when he did. Smart business. Are you saying you would have done it differently? You must be very wealthy... No wait.... Nevermind
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.