Posted on 01/22/2016 12:44:18 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
Please click the link for the video of this report from the Institute for Justice who represented Vera Coking against Donald Trump and won in court. Here is a transcript of the same:
In the video: Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice (appears to be a property rights advocacy group), Donald Trump, John Stossel, Vera Coking
--------------------
Clip of ABC News report playing interviewing Trump.
TRUMP: In life you have a thing called condemnation and cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city - whether it's New York, whether it's Los Angeles, whether it's any other place. Atlantic City is one of those cities and it's got the right to condemn.
-----------------------------------
BERLINER: In the 1990s, Donald Trump was behind an outrageous case of eminent domain abuse. Vera Coking was an elderly widow who lived for decades in her home beside Atlantic City's boardwalk. She loved that home, and Donald Trump wanted Vera's home so he could put in limousine parking for his casino across the street.
------------------------
TRUMP: Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees that property and it's not fair to Atlantic City and the people. They're staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.
STOSSEL: You're bullying these people out because they're -
TRUMP: Excuse me - that's wrong. For you to use the word 'bully', John, is very unfair. This is a government case - this is not Donald Trump.
STOSSEL: Yes it's Donald Trump - it's you and your cronies in government working together.
TRUMP: For you to call these people cronies is very unfair - to call good public servants cronies.
-----------------------------------
BERLINER: An unaccountable state agency tried to condemn Vera Coking's property and transfer it to Donald Trump. He convinced the government officials to use their eminent domain power to take Vera's home. This was public power - but used for private gain.
-------------------------
TRUMP: We have been so nice to this woman. I offered her a lot of money - out of this (pointing to chest) - a little thing called 'heart'
COKING: Heart??? He doesn't have no heart, that man. The only thing he has - is what he's - worry about himself.
STOSSEL: Basic to freedom is that you if you own something - it's yours - the government just doesn't come and take it away from you!
TRUMP: Do you want to live in a city where you can't build schools? Do you want to live in a city where you can't build roads or highways or have access to hospitals? Condemnation is a necessary evil.
STOSSEL: But you're not talking about a hospital! You're talking about a building a rich guy finds ugly.
--------------------------------
BERLINER: Across the country, land hungry developers have teamed up with tax hungry politicians to bulldoze people's homes and businesses on the mere possibility that the new, wealthier businesses will generate more jobs or more taxes. It is time to end this kind of abuse. Represented by the Institute for Justice, Vera Coking beat Donald Trump and saved her home.
On the thread about the Cruz ad, responses ranged from "lies, lies, lies!" to multiple scenarios tossed out as an alternative scenarios about what really happened to Mrs. Coking, none of which had no foundation in fact. This is what happened. These are facts. They are not 'smears' on Trump - it is indeed what he has done and where he stands on the issue of property rights. The Cruz ad is accurate. Now can we have a rationale explanation as to why conservatives should not be concerned about this vs. trying to argue it isn't true and attacking people as "liars" who dare voice even the slightest concern?
So taking a widow’s house for a casino overflow parking lot for limo-riding fat cats is conservative now?
Maybe the Democrats were right about Republicans.
How does Cruz think the land for the Keystone pipeline that he supported would be acquired? Emminent Domain.
The pipeline land would be bought and taken for a corporations use to transport corporate oil from Canada to the gulf at a corporate storage facility to be sent on a corporations ship to asia to be refined and sold by a corporation there. No different from Trump’s deal. All keystone infrastructure was to benefit the corporations using it. With Asia as the primary beneficiary.
If you think back on the way that leftists and the media painted milquetoast, friendly, religious, fella next door Mitt Romney as an out of touch, industrialist, cold hearted, one percenter....We ain’t seen nuthin yet.
It’s very sad that you can’t distinguish between transportation routes that must go from point A to point B to be effective, and a parking lot for a rich casino owner, that can be put anywhere.
The first may require eminent domain, the second never does.
Trump’s supporters are very thin skinned. They’ll dish out the insults, but they can’t take any criticism of Trump, and they will try to bully any opposition into silence.....just like liberals do
“I’ve done a lot of out parcels. Most of the time they just want money,” he said. “It’s very rarely that they say, ‘I love my house. It’s the greatest thing.’ Because these people buy a house now that’s five times bigger in a better location, so eminent domain when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good — I think it’s a wonderful thing.”
So as long as its some one else that just wants money .. its a bad thing.. but if its “the donald” its the art of the deal..
Having lost a suit before the Kelo decison I can see why
Mr. Trump said
“I happen to agree with it 100 percent,†he to Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.
Still Trump over Hillary or Bernie..but in primary.. not so much.
Intrastate pipelines are part of our national defense.
Pipelines are analogous to Roads as the transport the goods of the nation. They are not analogous to an Amusement park (what Mr Trump was trying to use eminent domain for in the case used in the ad) or a Shopping center (Kelo)
First of all...not all of the properties would be taken by eminent domain. In fact, probably very few would. I happen to have a pipeline on my property. The way it works is that they come through and make offers to the various property owners based on how much their land will be affected. You can accept the deal, renegotiate the deal or reject the deal. If you reject the deal, it is up to the pipeline to determine if it is cheaper to fight you in court, abandon the project or find another path for the pipeline. If they end up taking you to court it is not only the benefit of the pipeline that is in question. It is also the refiners, the drillers, the industry, the consmers AND YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY MADE DEALS. Their compensation deals will all fall apart if you don’t sell or permit easement.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that there are zero, none, no instances where eminent domain is ever justified.
I think there is a big difference between a pipeline that will help millions of people (including those who are being compensated for their land) and a limousine lane for a casino.
It’s “smart business.”
“If you think back on the way that leftists and the media painted milquetoast, friendly, religious, fella next door Mitt Romney as an out of touch, industrialist, cold hearted, one percenter....We ain’t seen nuthin yet.”
Yep. Kicking widow out of her house for his limos.
Classy guy, that Trump.
After numerous accidents and a couple of deaths the county decided to straighten a bad curve that adjoined my property. Yes they used their legal team to take part of my field .....so. They gave me fair price and I am happy the road is safer
I think we should be weary of using eminent domain for Keystone, or anything else. But a City Council using it to steal a private property just because they big government crony bribes them to do it, for something that serves no government necessity is not the same thing.
You obviously don't like living in a free country.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A parking lot for a private business does not fall under this constitutional amendment. A public highway or an easment for a public highway does.
Wonder what Trump bough when he gave Hillary $50,000?
Maybe some email?
Trump will be so easy to paint as a corrupt guy, because he is a corrupt guy.
Here is a somewhat biased anti-Trump version of the actual events.
Apparently not easy enough. It’s like his campaign exists in Opposite Day.
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.