Trump: Eminent domain is ‘a wonderful thing’

The Hill ^ | October 06, 2015 | Elliot Smilowitz

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday reiterated his stance in favor of eminent domain — a view not shared by many in his party.

 

"Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing," Trump told Fox News' Bret Baier. 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

“You're not taking property. … You're paying a fortune for that property,” he said of the process, adding that homeowners can be paid “four, five, six, ten times” their property’s value.

 

Trump, a real estate mogul, noted that he’s dealt with eminent domain a lot in building developments in New York City. He said the idea that people are forced to sell homes they don’t really want to give up is a myth.

 

"Most of the time, they just want money,” the businessman said. “These people can go buy a house now that's five times bigger and in a better location."

 

The conservative group Club For Growth has run attack ads on Trump over his support for eminent domain. Trump on Tuesday dismissed those attacks as a result of his refusal to donate to the Club.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Related...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3345537/posts

[roadcat]

“You're not taking property. … You're paying a fortune for that property,”

Taking is taking, if the owner is forced to give up the property. And many people get a pittance compared to what the land is worth after being developed. If eminent domain were fair, the owner would get some profit sharing from the development, or be allowed to keep title to the land.

[zeugma]

This is one of the things that I despise about Trump. Kelo was a bad decision, and is bad law.

[tumblindice]

If the GOP-e’s Club for Growth and David McIntosh don’t like the `public takings’ clause, they should work to get the 5th amendment repealed.
Instead they’ll mau mau Trump, as instructed.

[WENDLE]

I love this guy. Is he ever wrong?

[MeshugeMikey]

Notice the order he places these items in:

“”Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it’s a wonderful thing,””

the last item will likely be remembered by the “reader” or hearer

the first item....not as likely.

anything that allows the donnie to profit is fine by him

the public good is as far as hes concerned... The Donnie Good!

Dear Donnie

roads and dams are not casinos...

Sincerely,

M.M.

[hoosiermama]

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

[TexasGator]

“And many people get a pittance compared to what the land is worth after being developed.”

If they don’t sell, there is no development and no increase in worth.

Should the property owner get a windfall due to the developers work?

[FreeReign]

If the GOP-e’s Club for Growth and David McIntosh don’t like the `public takings’ clause, they should work to get the 5th amendment repealed.

No not at all.

The Takings Clause as written is fine.

What isn't fine is the unconstitutional taking of private property for private use.

[roadcat]

My wife’s father owned a liquor store. Redevelopment forced him and others from the block. It was a couple blocks from a new subway station, where he used to own a store and was forced out when they built the station. Here it is 30 years later, and the liquor store site is a little-used parking lot because the city’s project failed. Eminent domain did not do much public good on this one. He gave up on stores and bought an apartment complex, crossing his fingers that it wouldn’t be taken from him.

[CA Conservative]

If the GOP-e’s Club for Growth and David McIntosh don’t like the `public takings’ clause, they should work to get the 5th amendment repealed.

Eminent domain was supposed to be used to take land for public use - roadways, libraries, railroad right-of-ways, etc. Using eminent domain to transfer private property to a developer is an abuse of the concept. Anyone supporting that cannot truly call themselves a constitutional conservative. We already knew that about Trump, and I guess we now know that about you as well...

[Mase]

I love this guy. Is he ever wrong?

No kidding. He and David Souter are kindred spirits. Gotta love it!

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

I was watching when he said it ,I cringed hoping people would not dump on him over it.

Hey at least he is honest enough to say what he thinks.

A number of things that make me cringe now, but I think he could be great still.

He could be great still as long as he stands by his promise to appoint Conservative judges

[Hugin]

Right now eminent domain for private use is about 99th on my list of 100 most important issues. We’re on the brink of very interesting times, and there are more important things to worry about.

[cripplecreek]

Using eminent domain to transfer private property to a developer is an abuse of the concept.

One of the filthiest scams going in Washington DC. See Harry Reid as an example.

[MeshugeMikey]

Perhaps this is what that alleged train to nowhere in California is actually all about?

take all the “necessary land....and rhen when the project goes belly up...they sell the land....

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

People bitched when the Interstate Highway system was built too.

Yeah, let's continue to drive up and down those muddy county roads with no railings.

[piasa]

"Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing," Trump told Fox News' Bret Baier.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it, even if we were sure that they existed. It is hardly too strong to say, that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended.” --- Daniel Webster

[ConservativeMind]

We need roads and such and that comes from eminent domain.

I wonder, though, how Donald would feel if government came along and took over ownership of patents or companies for the same purpose. Imagine if the government saw any investment slated to take off wildly, swoop in to expropriate it, giving only today’s value for it. Would Donald be similarly okay?