Posted on 10/06/2015 6:24:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
If we had, we wouldn’t have UN Agenda 21 looking over our shoulders.
I’m beginning to see ‘shades of obama’. Promise anything, backtrack on everything.
He lost that case to Vera Coking. She kept her house and Trump lost. Yet the media will now make it the public perception that Trump ran a widow out of her home.
If Trump ever wants to sue someone, it should be the media for their blatant propaganda.
he was however, and we must not overlook this in the SHUFFLE...more than willing to try.... to run a widow out of her home.
meeting adjourned
‘homeowners can be paid “four, five, six, ten times” their property’s value.’
They can be, but they’re usually not - and who the f*** are YOU to say they have to move to accommodate your priorities.
Eminent Domain CAN be a great thing. The problem is it’s often abused by elected officials in bed with developers. And like him or not Trump is one such developer. A person’s property is worth a lot more than its monetary value to many. I have relatives in the south that had their waterfront property taken for no other reason then to build something that brought in more tax dollars.(Condos!) Of course what they were paid didn’t allow them to find a place on the water anywhere else.That’s just not fair and not what Eminent Domain was intended for. And when the property has been in your family for generations and you’re keeping up with it. Absurd. As a child I used to ask my dad why there were so many barns falling into disrepair on a stretch of highway near our house. He told me that when the highway system came through in the 50’s, the logical place to put it was owned by a wealthy guy who got the government off his back. Instead, even though it took longer to traverse the highway to reach the major cities along the route, they took a farm that was in a family for generations. The 101 year old patriarch of the family died two days after they took the families property. How awful.
Oh wait, it's not even a little bit of a shock to anybody who's paid any attention to him at all over the last thirty years.
In general I've liked what Trump has to say, but I disagree with him here. Even apart from the whole "taking property" part, I highly doubt people really get 4,5,10x the value of their property.
I love this guy. Is he ever wrong?He may be wrong, but he's never in doubt.
Yep!
I don’t mind Trump running and people supporting him. ... just please, please, please no one call this guy conservative. He is a centrist populist that’s a mixed bag on most things. On the things he proclaims to be conservative about, abortion, borders, gun rights, etc, he has held the opposite position as recently as a couple of years ago for the most part.
Eminent Domain, like Government, is Evil... but a necessary Evil... and a wise people will limit both as much as possible.
Doesn’t Trump have this wrong?
Emminent domain means that the city grabs the land for free. There is no compensation to the homeowner.
In my neck of the woods, a landowner wanted a refund of the Real Estate taxes she had paid for twenty years. The town lawyer decided that the taxes she had paid were “donations”!!! and so the town paid her $0.00 for her land. That land is now a park...which no one uses.
Meanwhile the State wants to take my driveway and make it a public road. My driveway is three feet from my bedroom. The compensation is minimal.
Emminent domain is theft.
The government considers more tax revenue to be the greater good.
As long as their is due process and proper and timely compensation.
I’ve been on both side of that ball game.
It is pretty much the same thing as when some South American dictator nationalizes an oil company, pays what they consider to be a fair price and then turns the industry over to their political favorites. Trump knows that and I'm not sure he's going to be able to sell this one.
What do you mean? The subject was about them being forced to sell the land against their will.
Trump is just showing more of his big government statist credentials. Now his supporters will be supporting this position when they opposed it five seconds ago - just like them miraculously arguing with us and in favor of continued PP funding after Trump came out in favor of it. We rightfully decried Kelo v. Connecticut as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the modern era from the liberal block of the Court (with Kennedy providing the 5th vote). Now it’s wonderful because Trump supports it.
Oh, I see. So he only tried to run a widow out of her home, but since he lost the case, that puts him in the clear.
You have go to be kidding.
Yes it is, and it is constitutional. Only requirement is the owner be fairly compensated.
Oh, I see. So he only tried to run a widow out of her home, but since he lost the case, that puts him in the clear.
You have got to be kidding.
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.