Posted on 11/05/2015 10:09:15 AM PST by Freemeorkillme
Donald Trump’s high standing in the polls is attributable entirely to the fact that he’s not a Washington insider, not part of the racket, and despite his wealth really might actually give a damn about the Little Guy. So why is he saying things like this?
Donald Trump on Wednesday defended government property seizures as a “necessary thing,†even when it means involuntarily taking property from a private owner to transfer it to another business. Trump was speaking to reporters outside the capital statehouse moments before formally filing his candidacy for the February primary, and the Washington Examiner pressed him on his record of using eminent domain laws to expand his casino empire.
“Property rights are a big issue in New Hampshire,†the Examiner noted. “In Atlantic City you used eminent domain laws aggressively to expand your casino.â€
Trump interjected by calling this a “stupid question†before launching into a defense of eminent domain. â€I am all for private property rights,†Trump said. “There’s nobody who wants property taken away less than I do, believe me. I would lose a lot of money if my property were taken away. But when you’re building a road, when you’re building a highway, when you’re building whatever it is you’re building from a municipal standpoint, you may need a corner of a piece of property.†As he said this, he pinched his fingers together to demonstrate the smallness of the property.
The abstract reasoning may be sound — although in the Supreme Court’s disgraceful Kelo decision it certainly was not — but the optics are terrible. It smacks of Romneyism, a cluelessness about how ordinary people live their lives.
A reasonable stance. There is NO perfect candidate. Do I believe some are worse than others? Absolutely. I’d still pick the big 4 and several minor ones over Hitlery, any day of the week.
Very good, you outed the troll.
I think its a non-issue.
Go Trump!
LOL....so says the Ninny Finny. Or, is it Finny Ninny?
Funny, finny....either way ;-)
There’s more where that came from... gotta go.
Those of us who've been broke, on the other hand, know there are a lot worse things.
It is one way in which I believe Trump is very much out of touch with average folks. I had a friend (RIP) who was a 5th or 6th generation rancher with large acreage, very modest home and lifestyle, very far from wealthy, who politely declined when a developer offered him a cool $1 million for a small pasture of not even two acres.
Another acquaintance who had been born and raised in comfort and in the city, smiled knowingly and said, "He wanted more money."
What the acquaintance was ignorant of was the fact that if the developer had offered the rancher $10 million, it wouldn't have made any difference. For some people -- heck, for a LOT of people, money is low on the totem pole of priorities.
Outing yourself AGAIN!! Unbelievable.
BTTT.
Speaking of outing yourself, Fin.
In affectionate circle we call her Miss Lindsey!
“He offered Vera Coking about a million dollars, not 2 million dollars. And she turned it down, because she wanted to stay in her house. You or I may have taken the money (I know I would have), but the whole thing about property rights is that the PROPERTY OWNER gets to make that decision, based on their own interests. And it was HER HOUSE.”
You are incorrect.
He offered her 2 million or more and he offered to let her stay at one of his properties for free for the rest of her life.
He did not get her property by eminent domain.
She sold the property for far less than Trump offered her to a bidder.
Trump did explain several times that without eminent domain there would be no XL pipeline.
I’d like to know what he thinks of New London’s perverse notion of “public” takings, as upheld by Kelo... but I have no problem with eminent domain used for truly public interests (highway construction, military bases, etc.)
If there is no production in the area there is nothing to base the 25% on. Also just because your neighbors signed a 1/8 lease doesn’t mean your property is only worth a 1/8 lease. Your property could be sitting on a dome and the properties surrounding you might be on the outer edge without much prospects. Your neighbors might also be dumbasses and not know what they have where as you do.
With Kelo it can apply to minerals.
There are still a lot of small units not all wells are horizontal.
Plenty of people have properties large enough for multiple units with no pooling. The property just north of me is about 2400 acres ands the property east of me is about 1100-1400 acres.
There is no such thing as “forced pooling” and “unleased mineral owner” if 100% of the unit is on your property and you own 100% minerals.
In some states Kelo gives them an option to take your minerals.
You are trying to make up an issue that doesn’t exist. Show me a single case.
Also, better states have passed legislation to prevent this nonsense as well.
No evidence of that.
But you couldn’t post a link... right.
If Kelo was going to sink Trump, he’d be dead already.
BORDER SECURITY COMES FIRST, and unless another Republican is able to figure that out, then Trump simply wins.
The taking of private property for a public purpose is in the Constitution, and for a good reason.
There are times when land - not just any land - but specific land - is required for the construction of a road, a bridge, a naval yard, a courthouse, a canal, a dam, and so on. Those are pubic purposes.
The construction of an apartment building, a mall, or a casino by a private entity is NOT a public purpose. The government didn’t even have the temerity to claim such in Kelo.
Instead, the government took a broader position: that taking the property from its owners and giving it to new owners would increase the tax rake-off, and THAT is a public purpose. And the Supreme Court agreed.
With such a broadly defined basis for claiming public purpose, there would be absolutely no bar to your county government taking you house and land at a song and deeding it to someone else - anyone else - just as long as they planned to build a bigger, more expensive house.
Trump’s advocacy of this is an endorsement of tyranny. Sorry, but this is one of my long-held reservations about the man.
Trump’s flip flops make not a whit of difference to his supports. If his last name were Romney or McCain or Giuliani or even Bush, the Trumpettes would have dumped him long ago.
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.