You are correct that a lot gets done and done fairly through eminent domain. However, like many things the government does it relies on people and officials doing things to the right degree and with the right motives and with a sense of fairness to the people involved and to the public.
A lot of people (Trump included) note all the good things that are done through eminent domain. Nobody is disputing that. What we are disputing is the idea that merely making more tax money is a sufficient cause for taking a property (as an FYI, in the Kelo case, the ruling came from Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer— given that Trump agrees with the case, are those the kind of judges he would nominate?). As the dissent in the case noted:
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
It’s not the concept of Eminent Domain that I oppose, but rather the idea that public use should be extended beyond what almost anyone would consider to be public use. While there is a lot of room in between one extreme to another on these cases, it does become a question of judgment and fairness. Are people using this lever of the law fairly or not? What are the right circumstances in order to kick someone out of their home? I think it’s a really instructive lesson to note that the original plan at Kelo was never built and is now an empty lot. Similarly, the grand designs of using Casinos to save Atlantic City have imploded.
Finally, you mention fair market value — In the Coking case, the amount offered through eminent domain was clearly not remotely close to the amount that was a fair market price (i.e., the amount Trump had already offered her). By his own words he would have been willing to go up to 5 Million (he’s the business genius, right? Isn’t that the fair market amount?). Yet, he offered somewhere around 1.9 or 2, and then resorted to the eminent domain case, where she was offered 251K.
Was that a fair market value?
$215k was FMV or close to it. Trump offered her a great deal and she was a stubborn fool not to take it. Her right. Her fault.