Well, no.
Trump isn't perfect and he is shooting blanks on the eminent domain issue.
I plan to vote for trump, but certainly not for his stand on the E.D. issue. He is dead wrong. A rational man will admit this sooner or later.
His entire explanation confounds "public benefit" with increased tax revenue, which is a sick perversion of the concept. The voters of the jurisdiction must have the final word, not an unaccountable "bought" judge or the power hungry local elected criminals as to what qualifies as a general public benefit.
Certainly an unsupported assertion should never be enough.
Even the magic Negro has failed to succeed with the arbitrary and capricious attempt to sell assertion as fact.
It's simple.
A new multilane urban street connecting existing isolated neighborhoods with each other providing faster access by emergency services is a general public benefit.
Providing access to a casino or new shopping center with no similar benefit to existing neighborhoods is not.
Note that providing similar security access to future neighborhoods is a circular self-serving argument, unless the street involved is part of the city general plan which, at least in California, is required by state law to be updated regularly to fit changing conditions.
I’ve already gone round with folks on this tonight.
A private company is a private company is a private company.
Private companies are using eminent domain. Courts are approving of their access on this. That is the reality of it.
If you want to take it up with the courts, be my guest.