Cruz lied, this house didn't die
Posted on 01/24/2016 12:44:34 PM PST by dynoman
"The ad is very misleading. In fact, it outright lies about a widow's home being bulldozed," Pierson tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview. "When you look at the facts, there is a process in place for eminent domain which was followed in this instance. Ms. Coking ended up keeping her property for years, because Mr. Trump didn't purchase it, and it ended up saving him a fortune," Pierson adds. In 2014, 16 years after the court battle ended and several years after Coking moved to California, her grandson sold the house at auction for $530,000, far less than Trump was willing to pay her in the 1990s. In 2014, 16 years after the court battle ended and several years after Coking moved to California, her grandson sold the house at auction for $530,000, far less than Trump was willing to pay her in the 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Trump showing weakness?
Hmm.
Cruz lied, this house didn't die
The Cruz tweet says “bulldozed”, does it not?
And the way the Cruziban works is simple: Someone says anything bad about Trump, and the rest of them swear to it, even after thorough debunking.
Can you read at all? I didn’t mention Teds tweet.
So it’s ok with you that Cruz lies in his tweet?
Exactly. This is another damn Cruz lie that we have seen before. Cruz will probably say a staffer screwed up, but; I don’t buy it. The truth can easily be found on the Internet. Trump’s casino plans changed plus they never agreed on price.
Ted Cruz is a LIAR.
What is actually worse than the claim he bulldozed the old lady’s home is the ad’s claim that he got rich fromitand Trump made his riches from eminent domain, which is a laughable claim. FUTC.
You guys are starting to sound like David Brock defending Hillary on the e-mails.
Search the Internet. The details are easy to find.
Mrs. Coking listened to her son, and heir, and got scr****. Wiki is not entirely right in their info.
That is not the Coking house. Hers was pink and a one story thing.
No, Trump was not successful as a judge put a stop to his effort. Otherwise, he would have done so. So, if Cruz says that the house did end up getting bulldozed, that is incorrect, but that is no defense of Trump's morality in this instance, nor his abuse of eminent domain as he was making every effort to do so and would have but for the judge stopping the effort. The explanation in the article from Trump's campaign is also false that he "didn't end up purchasing it" as though he just changed his mind - a judge told him that he could not after a property rights organization stepped in on her behalf to fight Trump's effort in court. Here is a full report on the situation which was posted long before this campaign so it was not posted to be politically motivated.
So what? It was her right to do it.
Trump used government force to deny a woman her property rights. He’s a scumbag.
Exactly! I don’t think DT has ever acquired property through eminent domain, but maybe I am wrong.
The funny thing is that so many people think that someone who's spent most of his life looking out for No. 1 at the expense of friends and relatives has now suddenly had an epiphany and will now look out for the interests of tens of millions of complete strangers in the conservative moment. This is expected from a man of infinite political flexibility. I think a lot of people here underestimate the negative consequences of voting for someone who's lying to you to get what he wants. Trump may be a born-again conservative. Or he may be a liberal posing as a conservative to win an election. Like Obamacare, you have to vote for him to find out what he's really planning.
Why would Trump go through this kind of trouble? For the same reason Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions to become NYC mayor. Because it's the presidency - it's a chance to enter the history books. Nobody's ever heard of the 50th richest real estate investor in King Sargon's Assyria. Anyone who's ever covered ancient Near Eastern history has heard of Sargon.
You are correct. The $5 million was the asking price from the heir decades later. He sold for ~500K
The eminent domain case was started by the prior developer, Bob Guccione, in the 1970’s, not by Trump who took over the project. Guccione offered $1 million. Vera’s neighbors that sold after Trump became involved got $2 million which is what he has stated she was offered.
Atlantic city was desperate to host urban renewal projects and their decisions were based on trying to get a tax base and revitalize a decaying city. Atlantic City officials were the ones that condemned Vera’s house to get her out. She went to court and won because the city had not defined clearly what Trump could do with the property.
Eminent domain is vulnerable to abuse but offering the city a project is not the issue. Its the officials that need to be scrupulous about whether the public good is important enough to impose their will on an individual.
Yes, it can be found - and isn't at all what you just claimed. His "plans changed" by order of a judge. He was stopped only by a judge's order - he had already convinced the agency to take the widow's home by eminent domain so he could tear it down to replace it with a limousine parking lot.
The ad says Donald Trump tried to bulldoze the lady’s building. The Tweet said he did bulldoze the building. So the Tweet confirms the meaning that the ad was intended to communicate. Donald Trump bulldozed a little old lady’s building. However, being a Cruzadian makes one prone to call other people liars. ;-)
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.