Tag line.
And we all disregard Indian property. This country was built on eminent domain.
It’s interesting that this aspect of Trump’s biography doesn’t offend more FReepers.
*YAWN*
Same tired old BS. Try again.
Without eminent domain there is no keystone pipeline.
Not unprincipled deal makers looking for wealth and power. .................................. Like those in Congress the cabinet, the Czars, former president’ wife?
Trump has the MOST IMPORTANT regard for private property.
He wants our property protected from illegal invasion by illegal immigrants and terrorists.
We have middle eastern fighting age men flooding into our country, and Trump wants to protect our property and our sovereignty and our lives from all of that.
Apparently no since this author spent her whole column whining about the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.
A logical analysis of this “issue” proves that it is just a distraction.
Regardless of his views, the POTUS has virtually nothing to do with eminent domain. That is mostly a state matter, and many states immediately passed laws in the wake of the Kelo decision to prevent such seizures. As for federal seizures, they have to be paid for - which requires Congressional action to appropriate the money. Thus, I am not in the least worried about what a hypothetical President Trump believes about eminent domain.
“Emminent Domain is wonderful!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Cd7oHG6pk
Cities have the “right to condemn” to build his casino...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ
An entire article about what trump thinks and only one example of where Trump tried to use eminent domain and failed. And the paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.
It’s embarrassing to see conservatives twisting themselves into pretzels defending the use of eminent domain for a limousine parking lot.
Although I can’t understand why, I know that most, if not all, Trump supporters have no problem with his position on eminent domain. Haven’t seen it defended or explained, per se, other than “who cares” type responses. Isn’t the very concept of private property a fundamental component of our [formerly] constitutional federal republic?
And yes, I recognize that, given tax policies that allow local governments to seize for sale property that was paid for 200 years ago, the concept of private property is already badly eroded.
I know it’s not politically correct to say so, but, as for the Indian issue, it’s a non sequitur. Every inch of land on this earth was, at some point, owned and/or occupied by someone else, some other clan, some other nation or some other tribe. Some was sold and some was taken by force, but it has all changed hands many times throughout recorded history and prehistory. Land now occupied by the Blackfoot was, at some point, occupied by the Crow and vice-versa and land now occupied by the Hopi, Zuni, Pueblo and Navajo was, at some point, occupied by the Anasazi. I say this as a man whose grandfather was raised on a reservation and I am well-versed in the oral history of at least some of the Apache clans and their wars with other clans and tribes.
However, the Kelo decision, which provides for the government’s use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner, only further erodes the definition of private property and invites government corruption. It is no different than government subsidies, which allow the government to pick winners and losers; to decide who will make the best use of taxpayer dollars and, in the case of eminent domain, who will make the best use of private property taken by the government. Whether ethanol subsidies or private property, the government’s record in such matters really isn’t very good and very few beyond corrupt politicians and the wealthy who own those politicians ever profit from it.
It is amazing that posters on a conservative website have decided to minimize the importance of private property rights in order to advance the political interests of a specific candidate in a Republican nominating process. The distinction between public and private is perhaps the most fundamental principle that distinguishes American conservatism, yet many now seem willing to set it aside in the short-term focus of the moment.
This distinction is why we have Freedom of Religion, why we believe in low tax rates, and even why we have the Second Amendment; all because public and private are two separate things.
The proper use of Eminent Domain requires that a compelling public interest be served by some alternate disposition of private property, and that public interest is greater than the property owner’s right to deny the public access to the property. This clearly is the case for the Keystone pipeline or for highways or other public projects such as hospitals. It clearly was not the case in the Kelo decision or for Vera Coking’s home.
If the Kelo decision and the attempted condemnation of Coking’s home are acceptable, what uses of Eminent Domain would not be acceptable? If I can’t be secure in my own property when a developer claims his ownership of it will increase tax revenue or when a real estate investor argues that his parking lot will look nicer than my small home, then when can I be secure in my own property? Is there any reason that government can’t force me to give up what I own?
Trump’s argument that Eminent Domain authority must be unlimited or else we can’t build Keystone is simply absurd. If the public interest truly justifies this kind of taking, then it also justifies arbitrarily high tax rates and even confiscation of guns, as soon as someone decides that the result is in the public interest. These are not ideas that conservatives have traditionally supported.
But now conservatives support this because Trump says so? Forced agreement with every detail of a philosophy or person is simply Political Correctness. You can agree with Trump on a majority of positions and support his candidacy without agreeing with him on everything. This is why many argue that Trump’s supporters have fallen into worship of an idol.
Trumpees endorse all DT and will defend everything about him. Funniest, hilarious part - they still expect other candidates to have principles.
Hilarious.
Let’s make sure that we make it as difficult as possible for a city to to partner with developers in urban areas those areas that really need jobs and redevelopment.
Of course I would hazard a guess that few on this forum actually live in an urban environment that uses “Enterprise Zones”.
Pretty sure the people that you are “helping” don’t want the your help.
Bad when Trump does it, but completely ok when the government does it. No expert on the subject, but if/when Trump did it, he built something on the property and gave people jobs, unlike what the current lot of scumbags does.
Kind of like the ongoing land grab’s all over the country. Kind of like what’s going on in Oregon and all the uranium that Obama and Clinton sold to the Russians.
Lets forget about all the other stuff that these career politicians, the so called elite and their corporate donors have been doing to us since FDR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking
Take a good look at the picture of Vera Coking’s house here—after Bob Guccione built a parking garage on three sides of it.
Gee, isn’t there enough other Trump stuff to discuss?
How many time do we need to read about this? Bring on the poor little old lady in Atlantic City, take #754.
So, 0.3% of the population affected over ten years, or .03% per year. And she laid down the race card, too! Those figures indicate that one-tenth of one percent of African-Americans were affected per year, on average, even though blacks are overrepresented in poor areas, and poor areas are more (by the above figures) somewhat more likely to be targeted for renewal. Where does the Constitution guarantee that blight is always preferable to a fairly compensated buy-out?
If the housing was so poor that a local government wanted to compensate the people who would then be able to move, in order that their neighbors would have a grocery store or a new strip mall nearby, don't the neighbors' interests count for anything as well?