Donald Trump defends his vocal support for eminent domain: ‘I think it’s a wonderful thing’

Washington Post ^ | 10/06/2015 | By Jenna Johnson

[SeekAndFind]

Even though it's a stance not especially popular with some Republicans, Donald Trump continued to support eminent domain in an interview on Tuesday, calling it "a wonderful thing" that has unfairly received a bad rap.

Trump, a billionaire known for his major real estate development projects, described eminent domain as a useful tool that local governments can use to prevent greedy homeowners from derailing major projects that could create thousands of jobs or provide a public good. Trump said that some conservatives don't fully understand how eminent domain works and don't realize that homeowners are usually paid "four, five, six, ten times" what their property is actually worth.

"Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing," Trump said during an interview with Fox News's Bret Baier that aired Tuesday evening. "And remember, you're not taking property… you're paying a fortune for that property."

Trump's support of eminent domain, along with his use of the practice professionally, has prompted some criticism from conservatives.Republican presidential rival Rand Paul has slammed Trump over his eminent domain views, calling the mogul “a big fan” of the practice who has “shown no consideration for small private property owners."

The super PAC for the Club for Growth, a fiscally conservative advocacy group, recently aired television advertisements in Iowa that accuse Trump of supporting "eminent domain abuse" that would allow him to "make millions while we lose our property rights." Trump said the Club for Growth's attacks have come only because he refused to donate $1 million to their cause. He added that the spots are "not right" and do not accurately explain eminent domain.

[Raycpa]

Isn’t a wall between US and Mexico going to require eminent domain? Was this question a trap that Trump avoided?

[ClarenceThomasfan]

It is bizarro world here now as far as presidential candidates go. New facts I have discovered here.

1. It doesn’t matter if you are conservative, as long as you are a loudmouth blowhard.

2. It is ok to break your word, like if you sign a pledge and then run as a 3rd party candidate. It is ok to ignore contracts and promises if your cult doesn’t care.

3. You can be pro-government healthcare, pro-homosexuality and pro-eminient domain and be friends with the Clintons as long as you can fool the media and your groupies.

4. If you dare criticize Trump’s lack of conservatism you will be ostracized.

Well I refuse to be a sell-out. I will live and vote as a conservative and I will die a conservative - I don’t care how charming and manipulating a candidate is.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well we surely don’t want to give it to Hillary.

[kvanbrunt2]

Long Branch, NJ. Private beach front homeowners >>>>
and i think in the bay at keyport as well. used to sail catamarans up there in during the fecal chloroform (poop) days. but private is still private and property is still property and you just don’t transfer it to another person under our law/constitution. it’s diversity don’t you know. and now look at AC. government boomed and busted it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Jealous that Trump is schooling the conservatives in how to do it?

[kvanbrunt2]

here in Calif. it does not matter who I want to vote for anyway.
same in PA so i’m a “conservative for saunders” registerd dem. voted against obama twice.

[1010RD]

He’s another Obama, only this time he’s “our guy”. Wait until FReepers start defending his close connections to NY mobsters Democrat operatives are waiting to slam Trump with.

He’s as well vetted as Obama. He’s our hope and change. He just turned in 2011. He’s a tabula rasa ready to fight for the right. It’s sickening.

Worse, it’s a planned marketing campaign and conservatives are falling over themselves to fall for it.

[Raycpa]

If those against eminent domain had any self respect they would refuse to take advantage of the spoils of eminent domain by staying off state and federal highways, not accepting deliveries sent on public roads, disconnect from utiliies and refusing to use airports and railroads. Such use is taking advantage of stolen property.

[Chgogal]

The Fox Special Report's panel was piss poor. They were a waste of time. I changed channels.

Regarding eminent domain, hold outs and Ms. Vera Coking, below are the facts that support Trump. Bottom line Coking was offered millions of dollars for her house. She ended up getting $595,000. There were three hold outs in total. The other two hold outs collected $2.1 and $1.9 million. You didn't hear these facts from the panel. Boy am I disappointed. And these two guys are supposed be on our side.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/nyregion/a-homeowner-who-refused-to-cash-out-in-a-gambling-town-may-have-missed-her-chance.html?_r=0

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It probably should be there for emergency situations. I am not trying to say I’m an expert. I am just saying that taking property from one and giving it to another for the purpose of collecting more taxes is a terribly wrong thing. We should hate eminent domain even in rare instances when it is necessary for public use. But there is no excuse for it when the point is just more tax dollars or even more jobs.

For me it is a similar feeling to the death penalty. It is necessary sometimes but I still hate it. I am for it when necessary, but I will never celebrate it as a wonderful thing. It is always a sad thing. That’s probably not a perfect comparison because there are times when it is hard to not celebrate the death penalty for a particularly evil criminal. Conversely, it is always hard to celebrate the taking of someone’s property for public use even when necessary.

[1010RD]

Government is the real enemy and Trump is simply going to use the government in a way some conservatives believe will be good. Since history is the best indicator of future behavior, what has Trump done that’s conservative to date?

Is it his serial trophy wifery? Is it his being on three sides of an issue? What?

Oh, and don’t try to use the “veterans” line. Democrats use that all the time.

[nathanbedford]

You are quite right, the federal Constitution prohibits taking of property except for a public purpose and upon just compensation. The questions arise, what is a public purpose and how much compensation is just?

The Kelso decision held that the mere anticipated gain by municipality of tax revenues is enough to qualify for a public purpose. This is a rather radical departure from previous practice because it broadly expands the definition of public purpose. We're not talking about building roads bridges or schools, we are talking about private enterprise having its way against property owners because it can enlist the aid of some governmental entity with condemnation powers because. It is not hard to conceive of situations in which billionaire entrepreneurs can influence municipal governments and entice them with sugarplum visions of increased tax revenues. The balance of power has certainly shifted away from the private property owner.

This potentially alters our entire concept of private property making it all subject to being taken away at any time for any reason that the government conceives of that will increase its revenues and no doubt for other reasons which might be concocted. This is not merely a matter of the odd property holder being discomfited, this is a whole new way of organizing our capitalist economy. If billionaires who have access to capital can manipulate governments against property owners, the future is not one of liberty if liberty is dependent upon property.

As to Trump's assertion that property owners are compensated at multiple times the value of their property, this is simply not true in the general case. If it is not agreed upon, these matters are litigated and usually submitted to a jury. There is no guarantee that the homeowner will be enriched in the process but even if he is fully compensated, he has lost control of his property, he has lost a degree of liberty.

[Brandonmark]

When it comes to Private Property Rights, here is the real reason you should take the 5th Amendment:

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.

The key is "just compensation".

[agrarianlady]

And this is just peachy. And none of this even involves the President or needs his approval or can be stopped by his disapproval... this brouhaha looks like a big shiny squirrel object to me.

John Locke and the principles of our freedoms: life, liberty, and property, is more than a shiny squirrel object to me.

Anyone extolling the virtue of eminent domain absolutely turns my stomach. If Obama or Hillary said this, I guarantee every freeper would be against it.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

[FourPeas]

Trump is simply going to use the government in a way some conservatives believe will be good

This is the same position taken by many who voted for Obama: he's going to do good things therefore it's OK. The ends justify the means.

[ScottinVA]

Property taxes are a facet of ownership that’s understood and accepted at the time of purchase.... hardly a comparison to what those people faced up in CT.

[BlueNgold]

It depends on the circumstances, and the defined public interest.

Roads, highways, water plants, removing blight are all reasonable uses.

The whole tax revenue thing up in CT was the poster child for bad policy and a questionable decision in the courts.

[W.P. Wily]

I’m certainly not a fan of eminent domain. But I’m not going to let an issue that has 0.1% of the impact that the number one issue has (illegals) move me away from Trump. I REALLY don’t like H1B visa expansion and I think it has a lot more impact than eminent domain, but I’m not letting that take me away from Cruz.

Besides, if you don’t like the direction eminent domain is going thank our pals in the black robes again.

[1010RD]

The stunning part is that during the Willy Clinton years, FR was a wonderful refuge from the storm. A place you could meet real conservatives, get the truth out and know, at least in part, that you weren’t alone.

Remember as we broke the MSM for lie after lie? Now here we are having a NY Democrat shoved down our throats because he talks pretty. What’s happened to classical liberalism?

Right at the point where we most need a Constitutionalist, we’re getting a Keloist. Go figure.

[agrarianlady]

Amazing to watch people who call themselves conservatives support a candidate who is willing to use government power to steal from the weak. If you fail private property, you fail everything. This moral blind spot will grow into a massive abuse of power. It’s a serious, serious character failure - or used to be, among small-government conservatives. Shame.
Behold, the power of a cult of personality. I’ve always been fascinated by the times in the history books when one erupts, but never thought I’d get to see one on American soil - and among the “conservatives”, no less.
By the way, Trump is not going to deport the Mexicans, nor is he going to build a wall. He is the candidate most likely to ignore his own rhetoric a month after he says it.

I am replying to this mostly because it bears repeating, and I want to keep it.

I am also thoroughly tired of the argument that it's Trump or a democrat, or Trump or a RINO, that somehow he's the only candidate out of the top 10. (Excepting the real RINOs, of course).

The polls are not bearing this out in the general election. There haven't been very many of them, but they've been telling. There aren't many candidates they put against Hillary besides the top few, so we don't know how Cruz would do, but Trump does *horribly*.

Quinnipiac Sept. 24 National Poll

Carson 49% Clinton 42%
Bush 44% Clinton 42%
Fiorina 44% Clinton 43%
Trump 43% Clinton 45%

Florida Poll Sept. 23

Carson 51.7% Clinton 39.5%
Rubio 50.4% Clinton 42.2%
Bush 49.1% Clinton 40.9%
Trump 45.9% Clinton 44.5%

Elon University National Poll Sept. 21

Carson 53% Clinton 41%
Bush 46% Clinton 43%
Clinton 48% Trump 41%